Contrary to Jason and the Callers, the fault lines in U.S. Roman Catholicism are not between traditionalists and liberals, but between American exceptionalists and those skeptical about America. Here is how Patrick Deneen describes the division:
On the one side one finds an older American tradition of orthodox Catholicism as it has developed in the nation since the mid-twentieth century. It is closely aligned to the work of the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray, and its most visible proponent today is George Weigel, who has inherited the mantle from Richard John Neuhaus and Michael Novak. . . .
Proponents of this position argue that America was well-founded and took a wrong turn in the late-19th century with the embrace of Progressivism (this intellectual position, closely associated with intellectuals at Claremont McKenna College and Hillsdale College, was briefly popularized by Glenn Beck. It has been developed not especially by Catholics, but by students of Leo Strauss, but has been widely embraced by Catholics of this school). The task, then, is restore the basic principles of the American founding—limited government in which the social and moral mores largely arising from the familial and social sphere orient people toward well-ordered and moral lives. This position especially stresses a commitment to the pro-life position and a defense of marriage, and is generally accepting of a more laissez-faire economic position. It supports a vigorous foreign policy and embraces a close alignment between Catholicism and Americanism. It has become closely aligned with the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party.
Those are the Americanists (psst — Leo XIII, yes the very one of Rerum Novarum fame, branded Americanism a heresy; some Old Schoolers would agree). On the other hand:
On the other side is arrayed what might be characterized as a more radical Catholicism. Its main intellectual heroes are the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre and the theologian David L. Schindler (brilliantly profiled in the pages of TAC by Jeremy Beer). . . . The “radical” school rejects the view that Catholicism and liberal democracy are fundamentally compatible. Rather, liberalism cannot be understood to be merely neutral and ultimately tolerant toward (and even potentially benefitting from) Catholicism. Rather, liberalism is premised on a contrary view of human nature (and even a competing theology) to Catholicism. Liberalism holds that human beings are essentially separate, sovereign selves who will cooperate based upon grounds of utility. According to this view, liberalism is not a “shell” philosophy that allows a thousand flowers to bloom. Rather, liberalism is constituted by a substantive set of philosophical commitments that are deeply contrary to the basic beliefs of Catholicism, among which are the belief that we are by nature relational, social and political creatures; that social units like the family, community and Church are “natural,” not merely the result of individuals contracting temporary arrangements; that liberty is not a condition in which we experience the absence of constraint, but the exercise of self-limitation; and that both the “social” realm and the economic realm must be governed by a thick set of moral norms, above all, self-limitation and virtue.
Because of these positions, the “radical” position—while similarly committed to the pro-life, pro-marriage teachings of the Church—is deeply critical of contemporary arrangements of market capitalism, is deeply suspicious of America’s imperial ambitions, and wary of the basic premises of liberal government. It is comfortable with neither party, and holds that the basic political division in America merely represents two iterations of liberalism—the pursuit of individual autonomy in either the social/personal sphere (liberalism) or the economic realm (“conservatism”—better designated as market liberalism). Because America was founded as a liberal nation, “radical” Catholicism tends to view America as a deeply flawed project, and fears that the anthropological falsehood at the heart of the American founding is leading inexorably to civilizational catastrophe.
Michael Baxter, identified sometimes as one of the “radicals,” puts the issue this way:
“It has been a greatly providential blessing,” John Courtney Murray, S.J., observed in We Hold These Truths, “that the American Republic never put to the Catholic conscience the questions raised, for instance, by the Third Republic. There has never been a schism within the American Catholic community, as there was among Catholics in France, over the right attitude to adopt toward the established polity.”
However much this statement was true in 1960, it is not true today. Now the politics of the American Republic does raise questions of conscience for Catholics. Now a schism has arisen within the Catholic community in the United States over the proper attitude toward the established polity. The schism is between those Catholics in the United States who identify with liberal politics and those who identify with conservative politics in the secular sphere. The division is pervasive and deep, and it is tearing the U.S. Catholic community apart.
The division between these groups of Catholics is a consequence of Catholics’ performing the role Father Murray assigned to them. He believed that the United States was exceptional among modern states. Unlike France, it was founded on principles inherited from Catholic political theory. This meant that Catholics could carry out the crucial task of transforming public discourse with the principles of natural law and returning the nation to the consensus on which it was founded. Father Murray, a long time editor at America, was aware that this “American consensus” was crumbling in the nation as a whole, but he was confident it would remain intact within the U.S. Catholic community. What he did not foresee, however, is how this consensus would fall apart even among American Catholics; how, in attempting to transform the nation, Catholics would become politically divided and therefore incapable of performing their pivotal role as, in his words, “guardians of the American consensus.” Without that role, his story of Catholicism and the United States falls apart.
An outsider wonders whether these folks sometimes discuss the significance of baptism for justification, how long one can expect to stay in purgatory, the benefits of indulgences, the mystery of transubstantiation, or the power of bishops. It does seem that as big and pretty good and powerful as the U.S. is, its import vanishes beneath the weight of eternal considerations about judgment day.
Even so, Baxter issues a caution that neo-Calvinists, theonomists, and TKNYers should well consider:
The problem is that in setting out to transform politics [me: or cities or culture] in the United States, Catholics have been transformed by it. Like mainline Protestants, they have succumbed to the molding pressures of state-sponsored bureaucratic power—not the overt and direct power of Fascism and Communism or the militant secularism of European democracy (as in France), but the more subtle workings of indirect power, which domesticates any and all subordinate groups by dissolving their ability to resist the authority of the state and by co-opting the well-intentioned efforts of good people, good Catholics, into conforming to the polarized political culture of the nation.
Old Life 
Darryl,
First, we never denied the distinction in your second conjunct. Second, nothing in those articles refutes anything we’ve claimed about the distinction in your first conjunct. And third, these two distinctions are fully compatible with everything we’ve said, as is explained in “The Catholics are Divided Too Objection.” If you don’t agree, feel free to show how something in any of these articles contradicts something we have claimed.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, nothing in your website has refuted anything I’ve said in my website. So in the words of The Holy Grail’s black knight, awl right..we’ll call it a draw.
In the snark of Brother Martin Luther,
Andrew
LikeLike
“Conjunct” – I like it.
I don’t know that the Callers really talk much about the liberal/conservative divide OR the americanist/non-Americanist divide. They are more akin pre-Moral Majority Protestant Fundamentalists who tune all of this out.
The first group, in addition to being represented by “First Things” was/is also presumably represented by Buckley’s “National Review”.
Nice piece.
LikeLike
Reading Paul Johnson, however, one becomes aware that Catholics who don’t care about politics are an historical anomaly. This is an expression of the Christian faith, after all, that became closely aligned with the Roman Empire, to the degree that Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, could excommunicate Emperor Theodosius and make him publically humble himself to get back in the church’s good graces. How far they’ve fallen in the days of Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy.
Ambrose, by the way, was no fan of the theory that power resides in the Bishop of Rome. He believed Jesus was giving the keys to all of the apostles.
LikeLike
Erik, I enjoy hearing your feedback on what you are gleaning in your studies about Church History. By far my favorite episode is the council of Ephesus in 431, all about St. Cyril of Alexandria. A full doctor of Bryan’s communion (his Bishop of Rome collective, I mean, the one with vicar).
Peace
LikeLike
So, the argument is that true-american catholicism is found within the neo-conservative natural law/moral theology ethic, but never touches the biblical or sacramental religious tradition? So, the ‘liberalism’ as bad cop is purely a social/political consideration without a theological component? How convenient. Actually the neo-con, social/political consideration is still on the outside looking in, particularly within higher academia and quite frankly the fight for the theological heart in american RC is over. At best, even Benedict was a barthian figure on the theological score.
LikeLike
Baxter asks the question—if you won’t kill for Jesus and His kingdom, why in the world would you kill for the other kingdom, its post office and economy and the bigotry for which the American empire stands? Is it true at the end of the day that you can serve both God and also other masters? Does the uniqueness of Jesus mean that it’s cool for us all to carry Caesar coins in our pockets?
http://magazine.nd.edu/news/22419-michael-baxter-tribute/
LikeLike
Erik,
I don’t know Bryan’s political leanings. What continues to astonish me is someone like Stellman, a 2Ker, going over to Rome and essentially acting as if 2K theology is compatible with Romanism. From at least 325 to Vatican I, that would be a manifest impossibility. Even now, the pope has a secretary of state.
Very interesting to say the least.
LikeLike
Bryan, an aside, if the community here will permit me:
The prot/cath debate is massive. I understand you are a trained logician. My career in that field ended after <Philosophy 3 – Intro to Logic in my undergrad. I liked the class a lot, was going to minor in Philosophy. God had other plans..
My point though, is anyone can make a website. 10, 100, as many websites as one has time and energy for. I can appreciate an ecumical effort. But your assigning the nudist church as being a result of Sola Scriptura smacks of sophistry. Dont for a second think oldlifers aren’t paying attention.
The question remains-are you?
Peace
LikeLike
Bryan, you’re obviously unaware, but the conversation has passed you by. Try dropping the polemic and engaging the discussion. Actually, you aren’t up to the task of discussion but just read the articles. If you’re going to try to represent, at least get up to speed.
Further, the interpretive animal of extraordinary, ordinary and lay charism is enormous. This is why everyone ended up just going to mass. You’ve got conciliar advocates marshalling papal encyclicals to their defense and you’ve got high papalists interpreting encyclicals in defense of the limitations of the pope in service of the charism of the laity. This is why you have an entire discipline of canon law, and then schools within the lawyers of that discipline not to mention seminaries and pontifical universities and that’s before we touch on the religious traditions of which the current pope as an Ignatian devotee, is just a singular example. But, of course Bryan and even Jason have it wired. Oh, ok.
LikeLike
Sean, dunno. Methinkin’ (bad idea) these dudes picked the wrong religion to pick apart.
The rinse repeat cycle with CtCers is growing tiresome.
We’re waiting for Bryan to showup..
LikeLike
I would be honored to drink a cup of coffee with Mike Baxter if he showed up at the homeless shelter I am living at now. I bet he would be interesting to talk to. This guy is a modern day hero- I bet he doesn’t like celebrities either. I even like his taste in music- although I doubt many oldlifer’s appreciate the music of Neil Young.
LikeLike
Hello Robert,
You said, “What continues to astonish me is someone like Stellman, a 2Ker, going over to Rome and essentially acting as if 2K theology is compatible with Romanism”
I understand, as you do, that as Christians this world is not our ultimate home, but it is also plain to us that we are called to do justice, be good stewards etc…
Micah 6:6-8, Matthew 25:31-46
So while there isn’t to be a state religion, as run by men, if the only true religion governed the nations with an iron scepter that would be a great good for all people on the earth. The so-called cultural mandate is the Christian mandate.
What church do you see best fulfilling this?
http://usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/seven-themes-of-catholic-social-teaching.cfm
Darryl,
I am told that Pope Leo XIII wrote RN a good many years before the USSR. That is one prophetic voice, huh?
LikeLike
This presby would like to make a motion:
Instead of another 500+ comment thread for our host to have to wade through, if you (whoever reads this) has the urge to toot your own church’s smoke stack, can you please do so on this dummy thread I just created? Maybe DG doesn’t mind all the white noise. But if by chance you want to let all your thoughts hang out, I’m teeing up the blows for you, go to the link and comment away, all you like.
http://adb40895037.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/roman-catholics-and-protestants-online-do-too-many-comments-on-a-blog-reveal-rabies-theologorum/
PS following my own advice. This is my last post on this thread.
Adios muchachos.
LikeLike
Bryan, where have you weighed in on John Courtney Murray or David Schindler? I actually think it is admirable that you don’t write about the U.S. But that’s not the world in which you now worship and have your wafer.
In other words, nothing you’ve said moves you into the mainstream of U.S. Roman Catholicism.
LikeLike
McMark, of course it’s cool. What did Jesus do?
LikeLike
Susan, he also condemned America. When are you moving to Italy?
LikeLike
Susan, spoken like a good theocrat. But I’m with Robert–how 2k can survive CtC Catholicism is a mystery.
LikeLike
Robert,
2K had to take a back seat to the superior paradigm. I’m sure Jason would say that 2K is a part of “all the best things about Reformed theology” that he brought with him to Rome, however.
Can you say “syncretism”?
LikeLike
Hey John,
Hang in there. Hope you get back on your feet soon.
LikeLike
The more you read history the more you realize how pie in the sky the Called to Communion project is. Bryan will cite his “The Catholics are Divided Too Objection” article to any skeptic who notices factions within Catholicism, but accepting his premises means believing that there is one “true” strain of Catholicism to which he is somehow privy, even though he is not a Bishop or even a clergyman. He’s as much of an outsider as we are. I don’t mind these guys, it’s a free country, but there is a lot of wishful thinking going on over there.
If the Pope can’t clarify Catholicism for the world, Bryan and Jason certainly are not up to the task either.
LikeLike
Erik, it’s why I can’t shut up about the Dr. Bray Church History lectures at biblical training dot org.
But then again, I’m not posting any more on this thread.
Toodles.
LikeLike
Folks, hating my self for this, but here it is.
The voyeurism of blogging religion must be considered. Dr. Machen rightly says in What is Faith? how none of us can know someone’s spiritual condition, for it is between that person and God.
We see people converting religions out here. Coming of age. Acting out using a moniker. Going off the rails. Picking a funny avatar.
The fact is, the world is watching. Maybe not right now, but we are all out here, naked as we came from mother’s womb (see book of Job). I’m the worst offender, given my habit. But I’m serious. What we are doing out here must be thought through carefully. At besr, we are all sorry excuses for advertising for whatever thing it is we like. At worst, we all naked out here.
Again, sorry for the image. But really. Why must we analyze one another in this way? Is this not why our Lord instituted a visible church?
Peace.
LikeLike
PS I guess if I have a point, it’s build your own house (read: blog) to be naked with all your journaled thoughts on how great your religion is. This author who blogs has written numerous works on Protestantism , I should be reading those, instead of this. I know my comments won’t change a thing, which is why I can do this. But seriously, if you gotta let it out, start or join a blog, and go for it. As for me, I’m done watching naked people in religion forums, and I didn’t even click on BC’s YouTube link about the naked church, that he says came because of Luther and Sola Scriptura.
The world, and the saints (both among us, and those who have gone before) are watching as we type. Never forget.
Ahora por siempre: Adios muchachos!
LikeLike
Darryl,
That’s a question. Questions are fully compatible with the truth of what I said above.
Statements about what you think is admirable are fully compatible with the truth of what I wrote above.
Statements about the world in which I worship are fully compatible with the truth of what I said above.
I wasn’t intending to move myself anywhere. So of course my statements don’t do what I wasn’t intending them to do. Nor does an observation that my comment doesn’t move me someplace show that what I said above isn’t true.
Hence, everything you’ve said here is fully compatible with everything I said in my comment above being true, and leaves its truth untouched.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, then why associate Sola Scriptura with nude worshipers?
Since you don’t and won’t answer, I will do for you.
Bryan made a mistake. And they aren’t associated.
Don’t make me link to your comments.
Peace.
LikeLike
Bryan at the drive-thru:
Would you like fries with that?
Nothing I have said to this point in our conversation indicates that I would like fries. Indeed if you had read what I have previously written concerning the health effects of regular french fry consumption you would not even ask such a question.
Uh, OK. Will that complete your order?
I said nothing after placing my order which implied its continuation or which hinted at any desire on my part to order any other menu items .
So you’re done?
You may assume so.
Then pull around to the first window, sir.
Thank you. I will DRIVE around. This is a rear-wheel drive vehicle. To say that I will be pulling around is inaccurate.
Drive thru clerk (aside) — Spit in number 19’s chicken sandwich. What a piece of work!
LikeLike
After reading successive posts from Andrew and Bryan I feel as if I’ve been magically transported to the Planet Lovetron.
What was that?
I know, the planet Lovetron is fully compatible with everything Bryan has written, whatever that means.
LikeLike
On certain days the optimal apologetic for Bryan might be to stay the hell away…
LikeLike
Chortles, brilliant as always.
I wouldn’t spit in the meal, but would have put the shake mixer only 1/3 down so that he got the malt powder encrusted in the bottom 2/3 of the beverage…
LikeLike
Erik, I couldn’t think of anyone more unlikely to be part of the pure interplanetary funkmanship of Lovetron than our very own BC.
LikeLike
why does Dr cross always sound like a Mormon apologists trying to defend the Book of Abraham?
LikeLike
Bryan is becoming a parody of himself. I don’t know whether to laugh or seriously fear for his mental health.
LikeLike
Chort, yes, except instead of linking to an article, he’d hand them a tract when he pulls up to the windows
Erik knows what’s up, he’s an accountant. Bryan, our guilt quotient runneth over. Do listen to our literate commenter.
Can I pour anyone here dos equis, I’ve got about 6 in the fridge. Yo
LikeLike
In honor of Bryan, I link to my former self.
Do take care. I’ll post some more Machen on your blog again some Saturday. Until then, stay thirsty, my friend.
Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
PS it was the nude church associated to us that did this to me. Dont shoot the messenger (there you go: logic!)
LikeLike
Chortles,
Ha. Made my afternoon.
LikeLike
Sean: Actually the neo-con, social/political consideration is still on the outside looking in, particularly within higher academia…
Caleb: That depends where you’re looking in the academy. You should see the economics, business, and political science departments where I’m from! Oh, and they get all the money, too.
LikeLike
Also, dudes.
I was shocked to learn BC’s personal story. He wrote an article about the loss of a child. I think Susan linked it for us, this was months back. That led me to then link to BM Palmers book which helped me, as I considered my little brother’s death of a heart attack in 1991. I’ve blogged on my experience, here it is, for anyone interested:
http://adb40895123.wordpress.com
The fact is, we are talking way way personal matters. I saw DGH in a combox or blog mention how one of Bryan’s posts should take more into account those who have lost loved ones.
But back to theology, for me, I don’t want a post vat2 church. I want where God has placed me, that’s Presby. I believe our church is closer to the NT teachings, on what the church is, see WCF 25.
More than pointing people to the confession, I mean, what’s the point?
Advertising. Machen approves of that, so keep calm, and carry on.
Peace.
LikeLike
Fixed: http://adb40895037.wordpress.com
LikeLike
Third times the charm: http://andrewbuckingham3.wordpress.com/about/
PS in that article by BC, he passed out at the funeral.
But yeah, back to the theology. Detour is all me,and my bad, yo.
Peace
LikeLike
Bryan, you may think your truth untouched, but you seem — how did we say it — touched. Something is not right, son.
LikeLike
The last half of the second quote by Baxter is right on- ironically.
LikeLike
Iggy, so when do you start the rebellion?
LikeLike
Sorry,not Susan. Tater did the deed:
LikeLike
diggy, you’re the one that posted it as an example to follow. I’m not starting anything. I don’t even have a blog. I’m still waiting to be convinced to join your rebellion.
LikeLike
Iggy, listen to an accountant. Erik Charter tells BC to run away.
I would tell the same to anyone else here. We are spooky folk. Don’t be xonvin by us. Pretend you never found us.
And don’t forget to take the Gasx. For the record, I asked Bob Barker for Preperhation H while on the price is right, and I got a laugh. It was after I clearly lost the trip to Rio.
TomvdTom Van Dyke can back up my story. He knows the common burden we bear, childhood star and all..not easy folks. Serious. Watch Magnolia.Everyone, learn to laugh at your own absurdity. If you can’t do this, you especiallt must purge OLTS from your memory. Now. Peace yo yo
LikeLike
*don’t be convinced by us
*you especially must
Done. Any more, find me on twitter.
Queue Monty python Holy Grail. Run away!
LikeLike
Abs- I told you I found it ironic. How much fun can choir practice be?
LikeLike
Peace, iggs. I don’t bite, not on Wednesays, anyway..
Fixed link, I’m around:https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewBuckingha
LikeLike
Maybe so, Caleb. I’m still divining mostly 1992 RC and prior. I did note, that within this past year, some of my former haunts were loosening back up. And yes, the orders are quite adept at following the money, so as the yellow dog democrats and union catholics dried up, I’m sure they switched sides as necessary.
LikeLike
In general, personal details about characters (movies, theology bloggers, etc) is fascinating (an I the only who reads the personal details on Wikipedia of all the pop stars my wife always keeps me informed about?) Voyeurism much? Maybe, but people’s theology does not exist in a vacuum. It makes the anons like CvD that much more ridiculous. Punk kids here to hack, or honest questioners here? That’s not my job (hello Darryl).
LikeLike
dgh, BC wants your acceptance. Tillich sayeth, all you must do to be saved is to accept acceptance(hello existentialism).
Dudes, if you read Tillich’s history, he lost his mom at age 9 or something. His dad was a prot minister in Germany or something (somewhere on that continent).
Bryan wants you to say, Bryan, you’re all wet, but that’s ok. Yer alright, son.. He’s also defending himself and your words, under the guise of we love our former tradition, so we are here to show you the true way.
Unfortunately, we won’t buy, nor give our OK to paplism. I won’t anyway.
Thus my psychoanalysis. I got C+ in intro to Psych at UCSB, first quarter frosh year. I got to be in experiments, for the grad students, for extra credit. I try to picture BC as the Teachers aide in my philosophy class (intro to logic)
Except he was an atheist and proud of it.
Good times, noodle salad.
LikeLike
If you got the coins, give them to Caesar. They are Caesar’s coins.
Just because Jesus asked others to show him a coin, that doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t have His own coins?
Or does Jesus being unique mean that we get to a. skip the imitation thing, or b. cherry-pick the imitation thing? We know that we are sanctified by Christ’s blood, not by effort emotion and imitation.
if you got a wife, you gotta have the coins.
If you are not a parasite, you gotta have the coins.
Not that anybody is calling Jesus a parasite.
But if Jesus is not a model for how we live among pagans, what is to prevent the equation of Christendom with American exceptionalism. Unlike the Spanish, we kill for the sake of American missionaries.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and some operate with the default presumption that everything is Caesar’s, with certain exceptions
LikeLike
Iggy, wimp.
LikeLike
That’s not polite.
LikeLike
wiki on PT (emphasis mine
Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
LikeLike
I said somewhere above about the reason for a visible church. For the record, I was off, and this little diddy is much better at getting at what is worth thinking on, regarding the reformed church:
LikeLike
GAS-X, join what rebellion? 2k is about joining the submission. Maybe that’s why you remain unconvinced.
LikeLike
Hi Susan,
I understand, as you do, that as Christians this world is not our ultimate home, but it is also plain to us that we are called to do justice, be good stewards etc…
Micah 6:6-8, Matthew 25:31-46
Indeed.
So while there isn’t to be a state religion, as run by men,
So the papacy sinned by claiming temporal power?
If the only true religion governed the nations with an iron scepter that would be a great good for all people on the earth.
Assuming that there is no sin on earth, then yes I suppose. But It would be better to say if Christ visibly governed the nations… (which he will at his return).
I know you are bringing a lot of RC assumptions, so I have to say this—when the RC controlled most of Europe, was that good for Europe? I’m not sure the Protestants would agree, and even if we discount them, it’s not as if medieval Europe was the golden age for anyone except the bishops and the feudal lords.
The so-called cultural mandate is the Christian mandate.
With apologies to the good 2K people here, and because I lean ever so slightly toward Kuyperianism, I agree.
What church do you see best fulfilling this?
I see many churches doing good to the poor and preaching the gospel. I know you mean RC as the answer, but the difficulty here is being highly selective with the evidence. To be fair, most people are highly selective with the evidence, but with RC converts it seems to be epidemic.
On the one hand, Roman Catholic orphanages, soup kitchens, and so forth do great good. Even the attempt to be the conscience on abortion is good as well.
However, one cannot overlook that these vehicles have been either been ineffective or a source of great evil. How many kids have been abused in these orphanages and it covered up, bringing harm to the name of Christ? Rome continues to refuse accountability on this, and one cannot ignore the fact that this is directly tied to the propensity to protect an organization that exists everywhere but is heightened by Rome’s need to protect its infallibility. I am glad for the calls against abortion, but it cuts both ways to undermine Rome’s notion of being the true unified church when more than half of US RCs voted for the most pro-abortion president in history. I’m not even trying to inject religion into politics here, I’m just pointing out that in so many ways Rome can’t live up to its hype, and that is largely Rome’s fault. When Key political leaders who love abortion are faithful RCs and in good standing with their church, one must question the church’s true commitment to social justice in this realm. If it were really THAT important, those people would have been excommunicated a long time ago. But that might cut off Rome’s ties to government funding…
I don’t even mean to be that critical of Rome here, though I am very critical of Rome, but it is not right to claim one’s church is doing such a bang-up job when it isn’t. Rome’s size and infallibility encourages a triumphalism that makes it impossible for too many to acknowledge its abject failures.
And on the matter of social justice, much of what the popes have said on economics over the past few decades sounds like it could have come right out of Marx’s mouth, so one has to question how much justice the Vatican is really after.
IOW, Rome good on some things socially, very bad on others. Kinda like most churches.
And then there is the matter of what is more important, the gospel or social justice. Not that one should create a divide between them, but I can’t find a gospel in Roman Catholicism.
LikeLike
Susan, answer me this. Do you follow the pope on twitter? Why should i?
LikeLike
Sometimes you can’t tell the difference between a republican meeting and a pca clergy post, at least not here in Lancaster County the week after the “state of the union”. When they say ‘godless”, they don’t mean Mormon.
ww.westpca.com/audio/index.php?fuseAction=lists.mp3&fileID=1686&print=1
LikeLike
I follow Bill Murray, Susan. So make tour case. Frank may make the cut, if BM can. You never know, you know…….
LikeLike
Robert, great post. I’d do as Erik does, and post your post to my blog, so discussion can go on, on your alone.
The key is, you need to blog. Do so under a moniker if your must. It bolsters our cause.
WordPress is amazing software. If you have a smartphone, that’s all you need. It’s free. I don’t work for WordPress.
My boss is a Jewish carpenter..
LikeLike
If not blog, then tweet. We can leave the pope to do it all..
LikeLike
*
cancan’tLikeLike
Here is Erik on his way back to
ZarquonLovetron.No way I can pass up some excuse for sci-fi weird All style.
Next up to the tee be_____________
LikeLike
First Things on Rolling Stone on Pope Francis
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/02/our-pop-culture-moment
On my coffee table, I have a book of classic rock posters—from The Who, to Led Zeppelin, to Nirvana, Metallica, and the Grateful Dead. The book was given to me by a brother bishop who knows that, in my earlier years, I listened to many of those bands.
I’m a Catholic bishop, entrusted with the responsibilities of Christ’s apostles. I’ve had the benefit of exposure to the richness of Western culture: to great literature, and poetry, and sacred music. But I’m not immune to the charms, and whimsy, and sometimes profound insight of American popular culture.
I also know that pop culture matters. And that our country’s political and social opinions come more often from the world of Lorne Michaels and Jon Stewart than from the staid pages of even the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. When I talk to young people about gay marriage, they’re more likely to cite Macklemore than Maureen Dowd.
This is why Marc Binelli’s profile of Pope Francis, the cover story of February’s Rolling Stone, is so troubling, and so important.
The profile is an exercise in standard revisionism, bent on demonstrating Francis’ break from the supposedly conservative Church of old. Light on facts, heavy on implication, half-truths and hearsay, the piece remakes Pope Francis as the quiet hero of the liberal left. It uses the scandals of Vatican finance and sexual abuse, coupled with tired tropes about Opus Dei and the Latin Mass, to craft Pope Benedict XVI as a miserly conservative plotter. Pope Francis is the foil: the reluctant, populist leader of a move to liberalize and desacralize the Catholic Church.
It doesn’t matter how much or how little is true. Certainly, the profile contains a great deal of untruth. Inconvenient facts, such as the affability of an Opus Dei source, or the theological orthodoxy of the Holy Father, are dismissed. The piece is unbalanced in its sourcing, and it draws unreasonable conclusions from carefully selected vignettes. Over the next few weeks, bright Catholics will discredit the factual inaccuracies in the article. But what matters most is that Rolling Stone and its collaborators are working to hijack the papacy of a loyal, though often unconventional, son of the Church.
The reason is simple. Sexual and social libertines have little interest in discrediting Christianity. They’re far more interested in refashioning it—in claiming Christ, and his vicar, as their supporters. The secularist social agenda is more palatable to impressionable young people if it complements, rather than competes with, the residual Christianity of their families. The enemy has no interest in eradicating Christianity if he can sublimate it to his own purposes.
The greatest trick of the devil isn’t convincing the world he doesn’t exist—it’s convincing the world that Jesus Christ is the champion of his causes.
Well-formed Catholics know that Pope Francis isn’t breaking new theological ground. His work on economics, for example, is in continuity with a point being made about justice since at least Leo XIII. His call for broader participation by laity, particularly women, was a point of great importance to Benedict XVI. And his expressions of charity and solidarity towards those afflicted with same-sex attraction is rooted in the Church’s best tradition. But the media has driven a wedge between Francis and his predecessors by focusing less on substance than method.
There’s much in Binelli’s essay to criticize. But the piece was effective. The profile, and many others like it, have re-crafted Francis’ public image in the annals of popular culture. He has become a rock star. But if we understand that, and are prepared for it, we have a good chance of using the Church’s pop culture moment, instead of becoming its victim.
Among other things, the profile should spur committed Christians to work in secular and social media, in radio, film, and television. There was a time when newspapers and magazines of a certain size had a knowledgeable religion reporter—perhaps not personally religious, but informed enough to treat religion on its own merits. For a variety of reasons, those days are mostly gone. And so if we want to prevent secular media from hijacking religious realities, we need religious people at the helm—using the ordinary avenues of media to present a compelling witness to truth.
Catholic media is important—I admire tremendously the Catholics committed to it—but our willingness to work in and with secular media will determine the extent to which we can control the telling of our story.
I’m sometimes asked whether Pope Francis knows that he’s subject to media misinterpretation. While I don’t know him personally, I would suspect he is keenly aware of the choices he’s making, and the risks they pose. That’s why last week on the Church’s World Day for Communications, Pope Francis remarked that “if a choice has to be made between a bruised Church which goes out to the streets and a Church suffering from self-absorption, I certainly prefer the first. Those ‘streets’ are the world where people live and where they can be reached, both effectively and affectively.”
The preference of the Holy Father, like the preference of Jesus Christ himself, is to engage the world, to run the risk that journalists like Binelli will write unfounded, agenda-driven profiles.
Why?
Because, as Pope Benedict XVI said in 2013, by “patiently and respectfully engaging their questions and their doubts as they advance in their search for the truth and the meaning of human existence,” we can introduce the world to Jesus Christ.
In short, we take risks because we trust in the eternal victory of Jesus Christ.
Postmodern profiling by Rolling Stone should be taken seriously. But far more serious is our mandate to live charitably, joyfully, and boldly in discipleship of Jesus Christ. And the potential of living that mandate is limitless.
It is the simplicity of Pope Francis, and his charity, which are misappropriated. His generosity and humanity are remade as a shibboleth of heterodoxy. And as a foil, the humility and academic brilliance of Pope Benedict are characterized, with a fair bit of anti-Teutonic stereotyping, as Machiavellian scheming. But these images are laughably inaccurate, and fleeting.
The promise of the Gospel is that authentic commitment to the truth—and a refusal to separate a commitment to social justice from a commitment to orthodoxy and piety—will lead to conversion. The path of Pope Francis might lead to “media martyrdom.” But martyrdom sows the seeds of conversion.
As Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict wrote that “[St.] Paul was not of the opinion that the chief pastoral task was to avoid controversy. Nor did he think that an apostle should have above all good press. No, he wanted to arouse, to awaken consciences, even if it cost him his life.” In different ways, rooted in different personalities, Benedict and Francis have both demonstrated commitment to that ideal. So should we.
Pop culture is important, and powerful. The sign value of Pope Francis’ pontificate is immense. And liable to misinterpretation. But our task is to wed sign and substance. To use the new-found fascination of the world for the Holy Father for the quiet, personal conversations which lead to conversion. To use piqued curiosity to speak, from the heart of a disciple, to suffering souls.
If we live in fidelity to the Gospel, we’re vulnerable to far more than pop-culture persecution. But persecution is a part of the Christian mystery. And, if we live authentically, openly, and faithfully, persecution will lead to victory.
Most Reverend James D. Conley, STL, is the Catholic bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska.
LikeLike
The Catholic Media Network seems unconcerned, though:
http://catholicmedianetwork.org/index/archives/343
Pope Francis racked up yet another magazine cover with his appearance on the front of iconic rock magazine Rolling Stone. He is the first pope to ever be featured.
Mark Binelli’s extensive, 7,700-word cover story reflects the pope’s unusually wide appeal, which cuts across demographic lines of age, political views, and even religious affiliation.
Binelli’s piece, “Pope Francis: The Times They Are A-Changing” goes “Inside the Pope’s Gentle Revolution” to investigate why this pontiff is so different from those before him. Alluding to Bob Dylan’s anthem, Binelli portrays the pope as “Cool Pope Francis,” a politically savvy leader, PR expert and friend of the crowded masses.
This is by no means Pope Francis’ first appearance on a magazine cover. He graced the covers of Time Magazine and Vanity Fair Italia after the publications named him “Person of the Year” and “Man of the Year,” respectively.
The New Yorker also put him on the cover less than a week after he became Time’s “Person of the Year.”
Perhaps his most unexpected appearance was on the cover of The Advocate, an LGBT-focused magazine who named him “Person of the Year” for his landmark statement, “If someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?”
LikeLike
z- sorry,just got back from a Republican meeting. See now- I’m confused. I thought the purpose of this blog is to rebel against Neo-cals, Theocrats, and TKNYers. If the aforementioned would only heed caution to Baxter’s warnings then they might resolve their resistance to the authority of the state. Those po folk can’t win!
LikeLike
The problem is that in setting out to transform politics [me: or cities or culture] in the United States, Catholics have been transformed by it. Like mainline Protestants, they have succumbed to the molding pressures of state-sponsored bureaucratic power
Those aren’t your words, Darryl, but I’m thinking you endorse them, and this is a timely essay.* The difference would be that although many [about half] American Catholics have been seduced and reduced to silence–if not complicity–with the Forces of Satan [i.e., the Democratic Party], many or most of the mainline Protestant churches have done the same.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/001-the-death-of-protestant-america-a-political-theory-of-the-protestant-mainline
I certainly agree with your “Two Kingdoms” arrow here, Chief Wild Eagle, but I think your aim is a bit F Troop. Catholics are holding the line, at least half of them, and their church 100%.
Unlike the “Presbyterian Church of America” or “The Church of Scotland,” there is no “Catholic Church–USA.” Never was, and if there ever is, well, we’ll just put that one down on Jody Bottum’s list too, of Christianities crashed and burned, lying aside the road.
____________
*Unfortunately leading off with an indictment of “Jason and the Callers,” but not for something they said but rather for something you think thought should say.
You cannot hang someone for a sin of omission, though perhaps we should. What do you think? It’s your petard. 😉
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 12, 2014 at 10:12 pm | Permalink
First Things on Rolling Stone on Pope Francis
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/02/our-pop-culture-moment
On my coffee table, I have a book of classic rock posters—from The Who, to Led Zeppelin, to Nirvana, Metallica, and the Grateful Dead. The book was given to me by a brother bishop who knows that, in my earlier years, I listened to many of those bands.
I’m a Catholic bishop, entrusted with the responsibilities of Christ’s apostles. I’ve had the benefit of exposure to the richness of Western culture: to great literature, and poetry, and sacred music. But I’m not immune to the charms, and whimsy, and sometimes profound insight of American popular culture.
I also know that pop culture matters. And that our country’s political and social opinions come more often from the world of Lorne Michaels and Jon Stewart than from the staid pages of even the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. When I talk to young people about gay marriage, they’re more likely to cite Macklemore than Maureen Dowd.
This is why Marc Binelli’s profile of Pope Francis, the cover story of February’s Rolling Stone, is so troubling, and so important.
The profile is an exercise in standard revisionism, bent on demonstrating Francis’ break from the supposedly conservative Church of old. Light on facts, heavy on implication, half-truths and hearsay, the piece remakes Pope Francis as the quiet hero of the liberal left. It uses the scandals of Vatican finance and sexual abuse, coupled with tired tropes about Opus Dei and the Latin Mass, to craft Pope Benedict XVI as a miserly conservative plotter. Pope Francis is the foil: the reluctant, populist leader of a move to liberalize and desacralize the Catholic Church.
It doesn’t matter how much or how little is true. Certainly, the profile contains a great deal of untruth. Inconvenient facts, such as the affability of an Opus Dei source, or the theological orthodoxy of the Holy Father, are dismissed. The piece is unbalanced in its sourcing, and it draws unreasonable conclusions from carefully selected vignettes. Over the next few weeks, bright Catholics will discredit the factual inaccuracies in the article. But what matters most is that Rolling Stone and its collaborators are working to hijack the papacy of a loyal, though often unconventional, son of the Church.
The reason is simple. Sexual and social libertines have little interest in discrediting Christianity. They’re far more interested in refashioning it—in claiming Christ, and his vicar, as their supporters. The secularist social agenda is more palatable to impressionable young people if it complements, rather than competes with, the residual Christianity of their families. The enemy has no interest in eradicating Christianity if he can sublimate it to his own purposes.
The greatest trick of the devil isn’t convincing the world he doesn’t exist—it’s convincing the world that Jesus Christ is the champion of his causes.
Well-formed Catholics know that Pope Francis isn’t breaking new theological ground. His work on economics, for example, is in continuity with a point being made about justice since at least Leo XIII. His call for broader participation by laity, particularly women, was a point of great importance to Benedict XVI. And his expressions of charity and solidarity towards those afflicted with same-sex attraction is rooted in the Church’s best tradition. But the media has driven a wedge between Francis and his predecessors by focusing less on substance than method.
There’s much in Binelli’s essay to criticize. But the piece was effective. The profile, and many others like it, have re-crafted Francis’ public image in the annals of popular culture. He has become a rock star. But if we understand that, and are prepared for it, we have a good chance of using the Church’s pop culture moment, instead of becoming its victim.
Among other things, the profile should spur committed Christians to work in secular and social media, in radio, film, and television. There was a time when newspapers and magazines of a certain size had a knowledgeable religion reporter—perhaps not personally religious, but informed enough to treat religion on its own merits. For a variety of reasons, those days are mostly gone. And so if we want to prevent secular media from hijacking religious realities, we need religious people at the helm—using the ordinary avenues of media to present a compelling witness to truth.
Catholic media is important—I admire tremendously the Catholics committed to it—but our willingness to work in and with secular media will determine the extent to which we can control the telling of our story.
I’m sometimes asked whether Pope Francis knows that he’s subject to media misinterpretation. While I don’t know him personally, I would suspect he is keenly aware of the choices he’s making, and the risks they pose. That’s why last week on the Church’s World Day for Communications, Pope Francis remarked that “if a choice has to be made between a bruised Church which goes out to the streets and a Church suffering from self-absorption, I certainly prefer the first. Those ‘streets’ are the world where people live and where they can be reached, both effectively and affectively.”
The preference of the Holy Father, like the preference of Jesus Christ himself, is to engage the world, to run the risk that journalists like Binelli will write unfounded, agenda-driven profiles.
Why?
Because, as Pope Benedict XVI said in 2013, by “patiently and respectfully engaging their questions and their doubts as they advance in their search for the truth and the meaning of human existence,” we can introduce the world to Jesus Christ.
In short, we take risks because we trust in the eternal victory of Jesus Christ.
Postmodern profiling by Rolling Stone should be taken seriously. But far more serious is our mandate to live charitably, joyfully, and boldly in discipleship of Jesus Christ. And the potential of living that mandate is limitless.
It is the simplicity of Pope Francis, and his charity, which are misappropriated. His generosity and humanity are remade as a shibboleth of heterodoxy. And as a foil, the humility and academic brilliance of Pope Benedict are characterized, with a fair bit of anti-Teutonic stereotyping, as Machiavellian scheming. But these images are laughably inaccurate, and fleeting.
The promise of the Gospel is that authentic commitment to the truth—and a refusal to separate a commitment to social justice from a commitment to orthodoxy and piety—will lead to conversion. The path of Pope Francis might lead to “media martyrdom.” But martyrdom sows the seeds of conversion.
As Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict wrote that “[St.] Paul was not of the opinion that the chief pastoral task was to avoid controversy. Nor did he think that an apostle should have above all good press. No, he wanted to arouse, to awaken consciences, even if it cost him his life.” In different ways, rooted in different personalities, Benedict and Francis have both demonstrated commitment to that ideal. So should we.
Pop culture is important, and powerful. The sign value of Pope Francis’ pontificate is immense. And liable to misinterpretation. But our task is to wed sign and substance. To use the new-found fascination of the world for the Holy Father for the quiet, personal conversations which lead to conversion. To use piqued curiosity to speak, from the heart of a disciple, to suffering souls.
If we live in fidelity to the Gospel, we’re vulnerable to far more than pop-culture persecution. But persecution is a part of the Christian mystery. And, if we live authentically, openly, and faithfully, persecution will lead to victory.
—Most Reverend James D. Conley, STL, is the Catholic bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska.
Well cited, Eric. Let the Catholics serve as cannon fire. Stand back–2k–and pick up the pieces. Good strategy.
LikeLike
Zrim,
2k is about joining the submission.
If only, if only you had said, “to me 2k is about…”
Sorry dude, I am feeling a bit persnickety tonight – just got home after a long shift behind the bar. 2k is not about “submission”, except in your more torturous understanding of ethics, wherein your absolutizing of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 works as a sort of ethical rubber stamp that demands that – anything not related to Christian worship as expressed in Word and Sacrament – decreed by the state must be submitted to. This, regardless of the implications on Natural Law, which argues that there are certain universals knowable to all men in the moral and ethical realm that supersede the magistrates decree – especially when the magistrates decree contravenes one’s obligation to “love thy neighbor as thyself”, (e.g. don’t rat out the Jewish family living in your basement to the gestapo, even if it means lying to the ruling Nazi’s – yeah I know, the 2k bane… zee Nazis). Meaning there are certain ethical scenarios where our obligation to our neighbor actually supersedes the dictates of the state – which might cause us to *gasp* cast off the strictures of the magistrate in favor of honoring a higher ethical principle.
The only alternative you are left with is to say that outside Christian obligations to the ordering and worship of the covenant community, there are no foreseeable ethical scenarios where the state can, or even ought to be disregarded on the basis of individual conscience, or an effort to adhere in some sense to NL. You know I think you are 95% right, but your near-absolutizing of submission to the state does a good deal of damage to any historic Reformed understanding of NL, or it’s impact at the practical level of applied ethics.
Hopefully this kicks off some interesting intramural debates – if not I will log all complaints with El Duderino.
LikeLike
Well, I hear one need only memorize DVD the shorter to become acceptable to this community if there is such a thing is blogdom. I can certainly check your thoughts against DVD’s writing when I am done
golfingsleeping.I was starting to wonder where you had gone, brah. Good hearing from ya.
Grace and peace.
PS if PCAers like Machen, you may like me vebsite in hiz honor. It’s ze best to grace this space since ze dude made us Beliebers of all of us. Sank ze ex-VP for ze invention of ze webber-net
Yo
LikeLike
Mulligan alert. Now my name will be linked correctly.
Fore… (insert forlorn emoticon here, last ..golf..reference..ever(like when Tigger was told no more bouncing(I’ll manage somehow, I promise))).
LikeLike
tomvdTom Van DykeCatholics are holding the line, at least half of them, and their church 100%.
Even Bryan the machine Cross broke today. His website is his personal twitter feed. Tom Brown had to bail him out at CtC. Just read his own posts here, he even joins in the fun in poking fun at the flat capper.
As for you, Mr. no dog in the fight, don’t make me link to your old comments or start posting with my dog as my avatar again. Whatever the doc here orders, take it, for your own good, if nothing else.
Ciao to you and your rolling stone pope. Send my regards..
LikeLike
*
next up to the tee is…….LikeLike
Speaking of F Troop, isn’t that an apt description of Jesus and the apostles? We have the Roman empire and puppet Jewish authorities, what you got? Christ and him crucified. Wow.
LikeLike
Jed, are you willing for your wife, in some seedy bar, to serve the drinks that you mix? Love, Greg.
LikeLike
New one for Ponyboy,
tomvdTom Van Dyke and Darryl.I’m wondering whether those guys are able to poke fun at themselves. For sure, self depricating humor has it’s place, to a point. Eventually we see ourselves in light of Christ’s work on our behalf. Humility follows, and and overflowing of thankfullness? We can all pray this would be so for all if us.
Instead of in the peace of.. per flat cap pope Bryan, here I go:
next up to the tee is..LikeLike
Mudster comments withe delicacy and nuance. A sensitive artist. My complex bouquet of scents just can’t be appreciated while AB pushes his popcorn popper toy all around the house.
LikeLike
Andrew, it seems you may be hinting at something interesting in yours of 5:58 am, but I cannot make sense of your…stream. Care to translate?
LikeLike
Chortles, this dog can tack via a serious wind any day of the week, two times on Sunday.
You don’t think I won’t jump at the opportunity at explaining (all about) me, myself, and I?
It’s as simple as this.
I fought to defend for allowance of old earth views in the OPC since 2001 when I found her (the church, not my wife of now 11 years). So that was my beef when I found greenbaggins.wordpress in may of 2012. I’d subsequently work out my Christology publicly on the blog of Jacob Aitken (seminary graduate living in Louisiana, still blogs at http://bayouhuguenot.wordpress.com)
But this Poohbah popcorn popper just looked at the time, its 4:15am. If i havent convinced you yet that something just ain’t right with that one, just find me on twitter.
Point is, better to look at my 6:28am {subtract 3 hours for my local time} Chort.
Oh, and ive emailed the characters i find out here in blogdom. The last was a 60 email spat with
tomvdTom Van Dyke last weekend. That guy…I’d link to russel crowd doing a Are you not entertained , but the comment as stands should sufficiently spook all. As Robt says,
next up to the tee is..PS: Me. By the way, are there other inactive OPC deacons in blogdom, or am I the first, and only. That hypothetical person and I need to share stories..
PPS Chorts, any more than that, you know how to find me
PPPS this is fun for all of you too, right? Like golf?
LikeLike
May I propose to anyone looking for a good moniker or domain name: Grand Poobah is still available, as far as I know.
In the imputed righteousness of our Lord (the kind that there’s no hope without it),
AB
LikeLike
PS I meant not to leave of sean moore from my rant. I say if you read no one else’s comments , read his.
I need to head to the confessional outhouse to talk to that one. Oh, and havent emailed the other guru, Zrim.
I’m making my way to you folks. Just watch..
LikeLike
Tom – Well cited, Eric. Let the Catholics serve as cannon fire. Stand back–2k–and pick up the pieces. Good strategy.
Erik – Erik’s News: I Report, You Decide.
LikeLike
Jed,
Don’t pick on Zrim. He can’t help his low T.
LikeLike
Keeping Andrew on the blog commenting wagon:
LikeLike
Hart mentioned the phrase “Seedy Bar” and I am thinking I have head that in a song lyric, but can’t come up with it. Please help.
I for one would be willing to let my wife work in a Third World sweatshop for a pittance, but that’s just me.
LikeLike
Don’t encourage me EC..
😉
LikeLike
Jed, all that from a bumper sticker remark? But while there are plenty of historical and philosophical cases for it, I’ve yet to see the compelling biblical case for civil disobedience and rebellion esteemed over obedience and submission. Maybe you are to this what Nate is to movies?
ps Do resistance theorists ever realize that when reaching for history and philosophy to prop up rebellion they sound like the egalitarians making the case for ordaining females, as in yeah I know what the Bible says but given all we know culturally and historically and philosophically it can’t really mean we submit to tyrants or don’t let the women hold office.
LikeLike
Roxy Music’s “Love is the Drug” has a reference to a “Singles’ Bar”, but that’s not it.
Backup singers with dance moves like this don’t come cheap.
LikeLike
Pet Shop Boys’ West End Girls has a reference to a “dive bar”, but that’s not it.
LikeLike
Erik, it’s not it but now I’ve got Human League’s “Don’t You Want Me” in my head: “I was working as a waitress in a cocktail bar, that much is true.”
Now CSN’s “Southern Cross”: “In a noisy bar in Avalon I tried to call you…(“So we cheated and we lied and we tested. And we never failed to fail, it was the easiest thing to do.)
LikeLike
Here it is:
I heard you play guitar
Down at a seedy bar
Where skinheads used to fight
http://rock.rapgenius.com/Vampire-weekend-giving-up-the-gun-lyrics#note-307117
Think my youngest listens to this band.
LikeLike
You Gotta link for good s#!@ like that chorty. Duh.
Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
LikeLike
Talking Heads sings of a bar called Heaven, but it’s not seedy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNdMc6wGtU
LikeLike
I think I figured it out. It wasn’t a “seedy bar”, it was a “wimpy bar” from Jethro Tull’s “Up to Me”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zOv2O4TB5c
Now I can go on with my day.
LikeLike
Chortles,
That wasn’t it. I don’t know music after 1988. When I went to college I mostly listened to the Christian station that played hymns. Never got back on the rock and roll train moving forward, only going back from where I left off, mostly the 70s.
I am subjected to my wife’s top 40 stations, but only when we drive together. When the Grammy’s are on I don’t have a clue.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Those were good suggestions.
As far as The Human League goes, you have to go with “(Keep Feeling) Fascination” as their best song:
That’s either Jeff Daniels or Joey from “Full House” on lead guitar.
LikeLike
The actual phrase “seedy bar” never occurs but I think it captures the appropriate atmosphere and now I have a context for Jed’s workplace
LikeLike
sean, That’s what I’ve been taking about.
Peace.
LikeLike
*talking
Best part of oldlife is how we stay on topic. Any of the 102 now comments relate directly to the title of this post.
True.
LikeLike
The comment thread at American Conservative contains this nugget:
“I’ve read this essay carefully along with a few of the items linked to, and it strikes me that this whole discussion is a view from 30,000 feet that will have essentially no practical effect on anything. It all seems like a highly intellectualized approach to people’s values and political commitments (and I say this as an intellectual myself and meaning no disrespect). Actual citizens are called upon to help make — or, if they prefer, to choose not to help make — all kinds of concrete decisions, probably any of which could be both justified AND critiqued by appeals to St. Thomas and the like. Indeed, that seems to be the takeaway — that the texts and traditions of Christianity, Catholic thinking, and liberalism are all so varied, so multivalent, or so generally drawn and vague on specifics, that even a group of people who share as many premises and points of reference as the people mentioned in this essay do are still bound to end up disagreeing radically over what it all means. So, if they want to keep that debate going among themselves, for their own comfort or amusement, more power to them; but they apparently have no guidance to offer the rest of us, who meanwhile just have to get on with things.”
LikeLike
Sean,
On that You Tube link, is that Tom Van Dyke’s cat?
AC/DC & Led Zeppelin are still carrying our local classic rock station almost 40 years after-the-fact. Those guys were unbelievable.
LikeLike
Dan, right, how else to explain the fact that Father Murray “….believed that the United States was exceptional among modern states. Unlike France, it was founded on principles inherited from Catholic political theory” and the TVDs of the politically Protestant variety who think it came from Calvinist political theories? Never mind it descends from the pagan Greeks, ahem.
LikeLike
There is also this from the article, which shows Deneen doesn’t get out very much:
“Liberal Catholicism, while well-represented in elite circles of the Democratic Party, qua Catholicism is finished. Liberal Catholicism has no future—like liberal Protestantism, it is fated to become liberalism simpliciter within a generation. The children of liberal Catholics will either want their liberalism unvarnished by incense and holy water, or they will rebel and ask if there’s something more challenging, disobeying their parents by “reverting” to Catholicism. While “liberal” Catholicism will appear to be a force because it will continue to have political representation, as a “project” and a theology, like liberal Protestantism it is doomed to oblivion”
Focusing on membership statistics is misleading at best. As long as the dollars from the government keep flowing and growing, the RC in America will be just fine. The real challenge to the RC is maintaining some semblance of relevance in the developing world.
LikeLike
Tying together these disparate strands, First Things complaining about Rolling Stone’s article on Pope Francis is like the son of a woman who has gone to a seedy singles’ bar wearing a slinky negligee. The men in the bar understand what she is there for, but the son indignantly tells them, “Keep your hands off her! That’s not what she means!”
If Rolling Stone and LGBT magazines are naming you their “Man of the Year”, YOU might be the problem, not their “faulty” interpretation of you.
LikeLike
Erik, also, meglamania much here, but the new testament records a time when others were confused for drunks..
LikeLike
Reading more about Ambrose, Bishop of Milan. He was highly critical of the merchant class and believed that “fair trade” was a misnomer. The only virtuous Christian occupation, in his opinion, was farming on inherited land (which was convenient because the church had inherited all kinds of land).
In America, a nation of capitalists and merchants, one can understand tension between the American ethos and that of Catholic Social Teaching.
How many of the Callers work in Capitalistic occupations as opposed to religious organizations, academia, or government?
LikeLike
Dan, I do find it odd that the RC critics of America — and they aren’t necessarily wrong since I think they have a point about U.S. excesses — that they are taking RC’s back to the pre-Vatican II time when Americanism was a heresy, or at least, when a tension existed between the U.S. (idealized) and Roman Catholicism. In which case, they implicitly invite a return to the sort of views that produced anti-Catholicism. And yet, these Augustinian Thomists and Radical Orthodoxy folk also want to tell the U.S. govt. (and the bishops) what to do to promote human flourishing. So they are caught between a return to the RC ghetto and having a place at the table of the public square (sorry for mixing metaphors). This is odd.
LikeLike
And Erik, cute clip. Over here, it’s all haymitch..
Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
LikeLike
Andrew,
Have not read or seen any “Hunger Games” (or Harry Potter). The family speaks well of the former, though.
I have a hard time suspending disbelief enough to get into any kind of fantasy, sci-fi, etc. Liked “Minority Report”, though.
LikeLike
sean is my star trek bud around here, Erik. Growing up, as a pre teen , star trek deep space 9 was the most exciting day of the week.
My boss also watched star trek, so we argue over what’s canonical.
My wife loves (literally) hunger games, sci fi, zombies, I could go on. She’s writing her second sci fi novel now, but her first written s few months ago isn’t published or anything.
I’m prodding her along in what to do, but our youngest is 2 years old. Maybe teaching..
I actually don’t normally stay awake during tv shows or movies. Too much binge internetting at odd hours here, yo…..
Cheers mate.
LikeLike
Andrew,
That’s interesting that your wife’s doing some writing.
LikeLike
Connie Keller , a reformed writer, blogs and is someone Heather is looking to. Also, here is a reformed author of sci fi, right here in Nor. Cal, friend of one my church mate
here in south sf bay area:
http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/6852387.Paula_Treick_DeBoard#
Yeah, interesting. Thanks. Heather and I were discussing Aimee Byrd’s blog yesterday after work…
LikeLike
Here is Connie
http://connies-pen.blogspot.com/?m=1
Connie’s husband is an OP pastor. Was Heathers pastor growing up. Heather boasts of being baptized by Don Duff, none other than the stated clerk of the OPC.
And dynamite goes what?
Boom.
Good times, noodle salad.
LikeLike
More House organ stuff here. Did I mention I think my church is swell?
LikeLike
DGH- (all about ) I don’t have any real disagreement with your comment as far as it goes, it is just that these folks have been doing business at the MacIntyre stand for decades now and haven’t been able to get any traction that I can see outside of the academy. The real world RC situation in the US probably doesn’t differ very much from what (again, all about ) I can discern (as an outsider) in the diocese in my part of the country, which is overall growth in numbers of people attending mass (immigrants being responsibe for that), reasonably healthy parochial schools (never any real inner city schools in our area), declining traditional vocations, but a very large increase in the professional staff associated with Catholic Charities and other social service affiliates. These folks are all “seamless garment” types who get along fine with our mainline Prot churches. As long as the welfare state doesn’t go belly up, they have found a very sustainable model.
LikeLike
Dan, (some about) I hear (some about) you.
LikeLike
Jed- What can be said for a 2k theory that essentially denies the foundation for one of the kingdoms; that NL is not truly foundational? Another case of bad biblicism? A post-modern reaction to a failed christian structure? A sentimental nostalgia for some bygone era? All of the above?
LikeLike
Meaning of life?
Erik this is the YouTube for bloggers and tweeters
Rock on righteous ones yo!
LikeLike
Hart is correct about the desire of Radical Orthodoxy to still have a “place at the table”. You can’t be both “blue tory” and still get all the fun of being a negative prophet.
I am all for being “anti-liberal” but that does not mean being “anti-secular” and it certainly does not mean that we need to endorse new Christendom projects. Hauerwas, like Brad Gregory, simply hates both the Reformation but also the non-Magisterial idea of voluntary visible churches (plural) , Stanley willingly follows Leithart, Milbank, and Oliver O”Donovan into illusions of moderate and organic reformations so that one church tells the nations what should be done.
John Howard Yoder never agreed to the Hauerwas romance with Constantinianism. After Stan wrote Against the Nations (by means of one catholic established church)), Yoder wrote books defining ecclesia as that which happens (or not).
But Hauerwas more and more wants ( at least in theory) one catholic church where the ordained sacramentalists stand up front where you walk to receive salvation from them while they tell you what to do if you want to stay in the (one) covenant.
To go toward Rome is to go from churches being important to one church being the gospel. Stan likes the pope for the same reason he likes Amish elders.
If we want to go the other direction from Rome we need to do more than change seats on the bus heading that way. We need to get off the bus. That does not mean saying that visible churches are not important, but it does mean noticing that we only have churches (not one church). The best critique written so far of Hauerwas is Nate Kerr’s book on apocalyptic. Our hope is not our influence on society but the second coming of our King..
LikeLike
McMark, do you have a link to Kerr’s book?
LikeLike
Kerr is at Belmont and the religion department is glad to have him
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1606081993?ie=UTF8&at=&force-full-site=1&ref_=aw_bottom_links
I was told the book is heavy going, but the thesis sounds interesting to me
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted February 13, 2014 at 6:28 am | Permalink
Speaking of F Troop,
New one for Ponyboy, tomvdTom Van Dyke and Darryl.
Contrary to Jason and the Callers
I’m wondering whether those guys are able to poke fun at themselves.
Probably not. You can take the Christian out of Calvinism, but
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyketomvd,Finish that. You havin’ computer problems or somfin¿
LikeLike
You don’t need to see his translation. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.
But serious, don’t look now, but speaking of the the cat in flat hat, he is going all Divine Simplicity on an interlocutor at CtC.
Someone page Dolezal.
I’m out. Lates.
LikeLike
Sean, if your song was all about “me”, this song is all about you.
Peace
LikeLike
Dan
Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:44 am | Permalink
The comment thread at American Conservative contains this nugget:
“I’ve read this essay carefully along with a few of the items linked to, and it strikes me that this whole discussion is a view from 30,000 feet that will have essentially no practical effect on anything. It all seems like a highly intellectualized approach to people’s values and political commitments (and I say this as an intellectual myself and meaning no disrespect). Actual citizens are called upon to help make — or, if they prefer, to choose not to help make — all kinds of concrete decisions, probably any of which could be both justified AND critiqued by appeals to St. Thomas and the like. Indeed, that seems to be the takeaway — that the texts and traditions of Christianity, Catholic thinking, and liberalism are all so varied, so multivalent, or so generally drawn and vague on specifics, that even a group of people who share as many premises and points of reference as the people mentioned in this essay do are still bound to end up disagreeing radically over what it all means. So, if they want to keep that debate going among themselves, for their own comfort or amusement, more power to them; but they apparently have no guidance to offer the rest of us, who meanwhile just have to get on with things.”
Clearly someone who has no principles, only prejudices.
_____________________
Zrim
Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:57 am | Permalink
Dan, right, how else to explain the fact that Father Murray “….believed that the United States was exceptional among modern states. Unlike France, it was founded on principles inherited from Catholic political theory” and the TVDs of the politically Protestant variety who think it came from Calvinist political theories? Never mind it descends from the pagan Greeks, ahem.
Not really. Jefferson and Adams hated Plato; Aristotle makes it in only via Aquinas.
The Roman Stoics were an influence, but Christianity had an affinity for them from the earliest days.
http://www.nlnrac.org/classical
Regardless, those “pagan” infuences had disappeared from the earth even before Constantine, and it was in medieval and early modern Christian thought that “natural rights” become a reality.
LikeLike
TVD-“Clearly someone who has no principles”
Oh, please. The comment I imported into this thread was clearly aimed at the sterile First Things camp/MacIntyre camp debate, which only consumes all the oxygen in the room if you are in a broom closet. You can be bored and principled at the same time.
LikeLike
It was quite morally and intellectually nihilistic. Ignorism.
And our Founding principles are indeed from parallel tracks of Catholicism and Calvinism, a fact that I find compelling, not the least bit boring. Which is somewhat why I find Darryl do fascinating, for he hates First Things, MacIntyre, Thomism, Calvinist resistance theory, Puritans, Founders and America, yet claims to be a conservative.
I love it.
LikeLike
Grow up.
Next
LikeLike
tomvd, typical catholic response. chicken.
You are wrong about CtC and you know it.
Peace.
LikeLike
TVD- “And our Founding principles are indeed from parallel tracks of Catholicism and Calvinism, a fact that I find compelling, not the least bit boring”
Locke was which one, Calvinist or Catholic?
Whatever, you might try peddling this revisionist line somewhere else, say, over at the Socirty for US Intellectual History blog, if they will let you back after your remarks about Watts, chicken bones and watermelon rinds. http://s-usih.org/2014/02/two-interruptions.html#more-7093
LikeLike
Tom, or Christians were merely among those who developed modern notions of natural rights. But if the Bible is the text that forms Christian thought, doctrines of natural rights do not result. Things like WCF/TFU do (i.e. doctrines about faith, grace, baptism, election, and communion), all of which are curiously unaware of anything remotely resembling modern notions of natural rights. IOW, the Bible tells us how to constitute a church, not a nation.
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted February 14, 2014 at 9:59 pm | Permalink
tomvd, typical catholic response. chicken.
You are wrong about CtC and you know it.
Peace.
from what I see there and over here, I’d say he walks the walk, bearing mockery about his religion and even his hat, and clarifies the now-routine distortions of his positions with equanimity.
Walk the walk then, warrior child. You can start with dropping the infantile “tomvd” nonsense. The journey of 1000 miles…
LikeLike
Dan
Posted February 15, 2014 at 11:07 am | Permalink
TVD- “And our Founding principles are indeed from parallel tracks of Catholicism and Calvinism, a fact that I find compelling, not the least bit boring”
Locke was which one, Calvinist or Catholic?
Locke’s father fought in the Puritan revolution. The air was full of “Calvinist resistance theory.”
http://www.davekopel.com/religion/calvinism.htm
Of Calvinist bishop John Ponet, who wrote A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power (1556), John Adams wrote it contains “all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterward dilated on by Sidney and Locke.”
For the Catholic side, Locke’s First Treatise covers the same ground of refuring Filmer’s Patriarcha, which itself was a rebuttal of the work of John Cardinal Bellarmine against the “divine right of kings.”
Fascinating stuff, although probably too boring for you to actually research.
As for the USIH, I’m quite happy with how low these “professionals” had to sink to “beat” me. The leftpersons circle the wagons and attack rather than attempt to defend their idiotic ideas. I recommend “Bullies” by Ben Shapiro, how the left has cowed many good people into silence.
Look at the Presbyterian Church USA, look at the debasement of the Protestant mainline by “liberal” theology. Same deal.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted February 15, 2014 at 12:02 pm | Permalink
Tom, or Christians were merely among those who developed modern notions of natural rights. But if the Bible is the text that forms Christian thought, doctrines of natural rights do not result.
Yes, that’s the argument of orthodoxers such as DG Hart and Gregg Frazer. However, what is valid Christian theology is not the historian’s call. Darryl never seems to get that.
Things like WCF/TFU do (i.e. doctrines about faith, grace, baptism, election, and communion), all of which are curiously unaware of anything remotely resembling modern notions of natural rights. IOW, the Bible tells us how to constitute a church, not a nation.
Yes, I know your argument. But it’s a theological argument, not a historical one. Historically speaking, “Calvinist resistance theory” is a fact. You may deny it’s properly “Calvinist,” but Whose Calvinism is it anyway? Darryl Hart’s? Christopher Goodman’s? Abraham Kuyper’s?
The historian cannot answer. [One of these days you’ll state my position accurately, Darryl.]
LikeLike
tomvdTom Van Dyke,You wrote:
Bryan’s a hoot. I don’t know him, but I’d golf with him, given the chance. That’s quite a thing to say, no?
He’s fun, I’ll even say. The problem is, he is wrong about the Christian Religion.
But whatev.
You know the saying. I thought I was wrong once. It turns out, I was mistaken.
Fore!
LikeLike
tvd, and you care about the PCUSA why? Because they are out to get you?
LikeLike
tvd, as I’ve said before, “Calvinist” is a theological term. You invoke it. You do theology at some level. You can’t hide behind the mere fact, jazz.
BTW, that’s the same thing — fact, not theology — that the liberals (your enemies) use to drive religion out of the public square.
Do you actually think about this stuff?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 15, 2014 at 4:16 pm | Permalink
tvd, and you care about the PCUSA why? Because they are out to get you?
I’m sorry to see a great church turn to liberal mush. I wish you warrior children would save your fire for those who deserve it, and where it might do some good. Firing at Republicans and Catholics all the time gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
On the other hand, Whose Calvinism is it anyway? Not Machen’s, apparently. But at least the dude knew who the real enemy was, and had the guts to fight them.
LikeLike
The dude speaks:
Good question. To which I see words of his, as follows:
Must
tomvdTom Van Dyke make us do all the heavy lifting?Oy vey
LikeLike
<i.D. G. Hart
Posted February 15, 2014 at 4:18 pm | Permalink
tvd, as I’ve said before, “Calvinist” is a theological term.
Yes, you keep saying that. But to the historian it’s a sociological term. The content of the theology is of secondary importance, and what is “valid” Calvinist theology is of no interest atall. That’s a purely theological question.
You invoke it. You do theology at some level. You can’t hide behind the mere fact, jazz.</i.
not when it comes to history. I'd stipulate for the sake of you stopping distorting my position that Jesus wouldn't like Calvinist resistance theory.
BTW, that’s the same thing — fact, not theology — that the liberals (your enemies) use to drive religion out of the public square.
Do you actually think about this stuff?
But the liberals are your [Machen’s] enemies too. They just find you a useful tool to attack your fellow Christians and of course Republicans.
But get out of line once, and you’ll find out. They’ll come down on you like a ton of bricks.
LikeLike
Tom..son..,
Clean up your HTML por favor. Use this next time.
Or not, whatev. Just it comes off as unprofessional. This is a neat blog the host is running. We want reformed Christianity on display for all its richness.
yo yo
LikeLike
I run a Machen blog with no moderated comments. Will
tomvdTom Van Dyke rise to the occasion and be the first postee out there?It’s a great website. You could be the famous comment numero uno. Again, completely unmoderated. Though 1 link max per the combox. Or to purgatory you go!
See you on the flip side!
LikeLike
And lastly..Tomster,
Try to enjoy yourself. It’s supposed to be fun.
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted February 15, 2014 at 4:30 pm | Permalink
Tom..son..,
Clean up your HTML por favor. Use this next time.
Or not, whatev. Just it comes off as unprofessional. This is a neat blog the host is running. We want reformed Christianity on display for all its richness.
yo yo
Now you’re annoying me. Darryl has monkeyed with my copy before, making little jokes and distortions with it.
If he cares about the HTML, he can fix it in 10 seconds. Take it up with him.
But thx for the Calvin & Hobbes. I sent it to the missus immediately.
LikeLike
annoying you tom?
as you wish
here’s me. gone!
you know where i be, yo
peace
LikeLike
Tom – I’m sorry to see a great church turn to liberal mush
Erik – Is was actually in trouble as early as the First Pretty Good Awakening in the 1700s When New Siders first outnumbered Old Siders. By the Second Not Very Good Awakening in the 1800s they were in even bigger trouble. Hart & Muether’s 300 Year history of Presbyterianism in the U.S. is not an overly cheery book.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 15, 2014 at 4:18 pm | Permalink
tvd, as I’ve said before, “Calvinist” is a theological term.
Let’s try it this way:
When we say “Islamic terrorism,” everyone knows what we mean, and it’s a fact on the ground.
“Islamic” is a theological term, but is terrorism valid Islamic theology? The historian, the journalist, cannot answer. So if you don’t like “‘Calvinist’ or ‘Reformed’ resistance theory,” your objection as a Calvinist churchman or theologian is noted. But as a historian, the objection is not coherent.
These are descriptive terms, not definitions. For Whose Islam is it, anyway?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 15, 2014 at 4:53 pm | Permalink
Tom – I’m sorry to see a great church turn to liberal mush
Erik – Is was actually in trouble as early as the First Pretty Good Awakening in the 1700s When New Siders first outnumbered Old Siders. By the Second Not Very Good Awakening in the 1800s they were in even bigger trouble. Hart & Muether’s 300 Year history of Presbyterianism in the U.S. is not an overly cheery book.</i.
See, I like the hardcore orthodox. But it's theological history–and often highly contentious and opinionated–and outside of the schisms it produces in the real world, it's all abstraction. The 500-yr long battle on the nature of grace gets a little much, though, to the outside observer.
LikeLike
Tommy-boy, what did I say about html? Dont make an OPC elder take out your garbage, they are a rare species. We must protect the breed at all cost yo.
LikeLike
Tom,
Why italics on everything? Your attempt to make things clear is making things more unclear.
For someone who doesn’t understand and doesn’t seem to want to understand Calvinism you sure do hang out with Calvinists a lot.
Kind of like a guy who isn’t interest in women hanging out every night at a strip club.
LikeLike
Tom,
And who are you as “an historian” to make value judgments regarding theological liberalism?
LikeLike
In case I’m begging it, and they never tell me..
LikeLike
Erik, Tom’s not the best with computers.
Its more this generation
LikeLike
Tom, you keep asking that question. Who’s Calvinism is it? The Calvinism of the P&R churches. Why is this so hard?
LikeLike
tVD, on Machen: is that a fact or a theological judgment?
LikeLike
tVD, let’s keep it straight. We have history, sociology, and theology. If Calvinism is a sociological term, then you’re doing sociology, not history.
Oh, brother.
Yes, and Machen was an enemy of secularists when he opposed Christians who supported Prohibition, failed to rally to Bryan’s side at Dayton, and kept Bible and prayer out of public schools.
How do you like history now?
LikeLike
tVD, respect your RC past, man. Rome preached resistance theory before Calvinists did. Are you a self-hating ex-RC?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 15, 2014 at 9:48 pm | Permalink
tVD, respect your RC past, man. Rome preached resistance theory before Calvinists did.
Yes, Darryl. I referenced Bellarmine above. However, it was the Calvinists who put boots on the ground. they were parallel tracks.
D. G. Hart
Posted February 15, 2014 at 9:46 pm | Permalink
tVD, let’s keep it straight. We have history, sociology, and theology. If Calvinism is a sociological term, then you’re doing sociology, not history.
Sophistic, even for you.
Zrim
Posted February 15, 2014 at 9:33 pm | Permalink
Tom, you keep asking that question. Who’s Calvinism is it? The Calvinism of the P&R churches. Why is this so hard?
What happens when the mother church goes gay?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/church-of-scotland-minister-steps-down-over-gay-row-1-3292371
Is it still Presbyterian? When does the “no true Scotsman” rubric kick in?
Erik Charter
Posted February 15, 2014 at 5:45 pm | Permalink
Tom,
And who are you as “an historian” to make value judgments regarding theological liberalism?
Erik Charter
Posted February 15, 2014 at 5:43 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Why italics on everything? Your attempt to make things clear is making things more unclear.
Petty, even for you.
LikeLike
Tom,
And who are you as “an historian” to make value judgments regarding theological liberalism?
Serious question.
As always, it’s hard to take your moral critiques seriously because no one knows what your source of morality is. Who says theological liberals aren’t as right as anyone else in Tom’s world?
Your efforts to remain above it all render you mostly irrelevant.
The other comment was just pulling your chain. I’ll admit that.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 16, 2014 at 3:46 pm | Permalink
Tom,
And who are you as “an historian” to make value judgments regarding theological liberalism?
Serious question.
As always, it’s hard to take your moral critiques seriously because no one knows what your source of morality is. Who says theological liberals aren’t as right as anyone else in Tom’s world?
Your efforts to remain above it all render you mostly irrelevant.
The other comment was just pulling your chain. I’ll admit that.
Not “above it all.” I don’t respect theological liberalism. Lukewarm water. Ick. But historically speaking–say Harry Emerson Fosdick*–it is what it is. [Though I’ll confess a sympathy for Machen. Off the record.]
FTR, to avoid the pettiness of those who play the credentials game, I prefer to call myself a “student of history.” There are also many WITH credentials for whom “historian” is a stretch. Knowing history is not the same thing as being a[n] historian, and indeed some “historians” are to my mind far too ideological to be reliable.
*http://continuing.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/dr-fosdicks-letter-by-professor-j-gresham-machen-1924/
LikeLike
Tom,
Make sure not to be the guy that Timothy talks about in 2 Timothy 3:7 –
“always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.”
LikeLike
tvd, what you don’t appreciate is that secularists treat confessional Presbyterians better than “conservative” Christians. Why? Because secularists are not troubled by our worship — and worship is something that we esteem highly. A full-bodied service with lots of Scripture and the Supper is not a threat to secularists. It is to “conservative” Christians if we don’t support the same causes in temporal affairs. “Conservatives” (plus you) think our worship is irrelevant to the culture wars. But the culture wars are insignificant in the light of the cosmic wars between the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God. And if you want to make a case for how the culture wars line up with the cosmic wars, have at it. That will take some theological reflection on your part. And you say you don’t do that. At the same time, that case is going to look pretty thin. Anyone who studies the history of American Protestantism — anti-Catholicism, nativism, Social Gospel, Prohibition, the West (during the Cold War) knows how religiously thin the religious side of the culture war is.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 16, 2014 at 5:30 pm | Permalink
tvd, what you don’t appreciate is that secularists treat confessional Presbyterians better than “conservative” Christians. Why? Because secularists are not troubled by our worship — and worship is something that we esteem highly. A full-bodied service with lots of Scripture and the Supper is not a threat to secularists.
Of course it’s a threat, when it translates to this world. Get in their way and they’ll come down on you bigtime. They love Christians who shut up. They especially love Christians who tell other Christians to shut up.
It is to “conservative” Christians if we don’t support the same causes in temporal affairs. “Conservatives” (plus you) think our worship is irrelevant to the culture wars. But the culture wars are insignificant in the light of the cosmic wars between the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God.
According to your theology.
And if you want to make a case for how the culture wars line up with the cosmic wars, have at it. That will take some theological reflection on your part. And you say you don’t do that. At the same time, that case is going to look pretty thin. Anyone who studies the history of American Protestantism — anti-Catholicism, nativism, Social Gospel, Prohibition, the West (during the Cold War) knows how religiously thin the religious side of the culture war is.
I don’t think it’s thin atall, even the stuff I’m not sympathethic to, like “Social Gospel.” Historically speaking, of course.
On a personal level, I admire people who live their faith.
BTW, now that the Church of Scotland has gone gay, are they still Calvinist? Whose Calvinism is it anyway?
LikeLike
Tom, I said P&R churches. There is no mother church in the P&R world–your Catholic slip is showing. But when a particular member within the body contradicts morals and violates the third mark of a church, that particular member becomes a step removed from being true.
LikeLike
Get in their way and they’ll come down on you bigtime.
Yeah, which is why 2kers keep referring to WCF 31, as in intermeddling could bite in the backside. Still, have you ever considered the fact that actual tyrants want religious promotion? In which case, when Adolf comes knocking for our endorsement and we remain silent, it won’t take long to get cracked on the skull.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted February 16, 2014 at 6:32 pm | Permalink
Tom, I said P&R churches. There is no mother church in the P&R world–your Catholic slip is showing. But when a particular member within the body contradicts morals and violates the third mark of a church, that particular member becomes a step removed from being true.
I don’t know what that means. It’s just a question of who throws out whom. Were the people who threw Fosdick out the same ones who got Machen too? [I’d like a reply on that one if anyone’s up to it. There would be a great irony there.]
Zrim
Posted February 16, 2014 at 6:37 pm | Permalink
Get in their way and they’ll come down on you bigtime.
Yeah, which is why 2kers keep referring to WCF 31, as in intermeddling could bite in the backside. Still, have you ever considered the fact that actual tyrants want religious promotion? In which case, when Adolf comes knocking for our endorsement and we remain silent, it won’t take long to get cracked on the skull.
There’s definitely a danger of affiliating with a political party. OTOH, it would be right and proper to help the one that opposes Hitler–or let’s say, it’s hard to see where it would be wrong.
LikeLike
Tom,
Fosdick and Machen were over a decade apart.
Fosdick is further evidence that not much good in Presbyterianism has come out of NYC. Fosdick was actually a liberal Baptist ministering in a Presbyterian Church.
Machen’s views didn’t get him kicked out as much as his insubordination in starting the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions.
LikeLike
Tom – I don’t know what that means. It’s just a question of who throws out whom.
Erik – Zrim’s saying that Scottish Presbyterians accepting homosexuality makes them less of a true church. True or false is on a spectrum according to the three marks – gospel preaching, two sacraments, and church discipline.
Hey, it beats trying to tie a church historically back to Peter.
LikeLike
Tom,
Fosdick and Machen were over a decade apart.
Fosdick is further evidence that not much good in Presbyterianism has come out of NYC. Fosdick was actually a liberal Baptist ministering in a Presbyterian Church.
Machen’s views didn’t get him kicked out as much as his insubordination in starting the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions.
Thank you. I was referring to this
*http://continuing.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/dr-fosdicks-letter-by-professor-j-gresham-machen-1924/
BTW, Fosdick’s Riverside Church in NYC is a complete theological mess. All they agree on is their political liberalism. The blacks prefer “enthusiastic” worship; the white liberals prefer a drier intellectualism that leans toward non-Trinitarianism, or at least anti-creedalism.
Erik Charter
Posted February 16, 2014 at 8:57 pm | Permalink
Tom – I don’t know what that means. It’s just a question of who throws out whom.
Erik – Zrim’s saying that Scottish Presbyterians accepting homosexuality makes them less of a true church. True or false is on a spectrum according to the three marks – gospel preaching, two sacraments, and church discipline.
You see the problem of “Calvinism” as any sort of normative term, especially theologically. To the outsider, they’re all “Calvinists,” although theologically they’re all over the map.
Hey, it beats trying to tie a church historically back to Peter.
That is not self-evident to the outsider either, although a theology that amounts to endless schisming is of course fascinating.
LikeLike
Tom, you don’t know what that means because it’s the response of a religious Calvinist, not a cultural Calvinist. And you’re not getting it. Not meddling cuts both ways. If the church doesn’t oppose regimes, she also doesn’t affirm them. But she’s damned if she doesn’t affirm (by the tyrant) and damned if she doesn’t oppose (by the anti-2ks). And so if it’s being pressed that proves moral fiber, 2ks get it coming and going.
LikeLike
Tom – You see the problem of “Calvinism” as any sort of normative term, especially theologically.
Erik – Yes, I agree. I think some have better historical claims to be the “rightful heirs” of Calvin than others, though. You have to look at the evidence for each assertion.
Tom – That is not self-evident to the outsider either, although a theology that amounts to endless schisming is of course fascinating.
Erik – I agree. There are problems with whatever narrative you buy-in-to when choosing a church — Catholic included. Try telling Paul Johnson the RCC extends back seamlessly to 33 A.D.
Fundamentalists of all stripes try to act like such problems don’t exist.
As a conservative, endless schisming shouldn’t be that surprising to you. Institutions drift and decay as time passes. They are constantly in need of refocusing and renewal.
I may have missed your point on Machen & Fosdick. What was it?
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted February 16, 2014 at 10:16 pm | Permalink
Tom, you don’t know what that means because it’s the response of a religious Calvinist, not a cultural Calvinist. And you’re not getting it.
Of course I’m getting it. Whose Calvinism is it? Yours.
Not meddling cuts both ways. If the church doesn’t oppose regimes, she also doesn’t affirm them. But she’s damned if she doesn’t affirm (by the tyrant) and damned if she doesn’t oppose (by the anti-2ks). And so if it’s being pressed that proves moral fiber, 2ks get it coming and going.
You’ll have to make the case that opposing Hitler would be wrong. And it’s certainly interesting to see you refer to “the church” as “she.” A Catholic can tell you what he means by “she,” but now I’m told that in your theology, the “true” church is some sort of sliding scale.
The problem is whose scale?
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 16, 2014 at 10:17 pm | Permalink
I may have missed your point on Machen & Fosdick. What was it?
I’m very interested in the period. Fosdick famously asked, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?”
Machen was one of the few who put up a decent defense, but the answer mostly turned out to be “no, they won’t.” While “conservative” Christianity was busy forming circular firing squads, the liberals won.
LikeLike
Tom, opposing a regime is to intermeddle politically and not to keep to things only eccelesiastical. But the onus is on the one who proposes to violate WCF 31, not the one pleading to uphold it. Then again, you’re not affiliated and thus bound religiously. More reason not to be obligated by your proposal.
Why so surprising to refer to the church as “she”? Isn’t that the proper pronoun for a bride (of Christ)?
LikeLike
Tom – While “conservative” Christianity was busy forming circular firing squads, the liberals won.
Erik – I still don’t get your point. Where was the circular firing squad in this case?
LikeLike
Tom,
If you’re seriously very interested in the period, I’ve got several books I could recommend. Hart’s “Defending the Faith” is a great place to start. The article in Hart & Noll’s American Presbyterian & Reformed Dictionary has a article on the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy that lists several others, all of which I’ve purchased.
“Defending the Faith” also has a really good bibliography — actually more of a bibliographical essay. It comes out of Hart’s Ph.D.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted February 16, 2014 at 10:50 pm | Permalink
Tom, opposing a regime is to intermeddle politically and not to keep to things only eccelesiastical. But the onus is on the one who proposes to violate WCF 31, not the one pleading to uphold it. Then again, you’re not affiliated and thus bound religiously. More reason not to be obligated by your proposal.
Why so surprising to refer to the church as “she”? Isn’t that the proper pronoun for a bride (of Christ)?
I have no idea what you mean by “church,” what with the endless schisms. “She” is “she” until you leave her and then she’s no longer “she?”
As for WCF 31, yes, I see.
Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.
OTOH, the WCF can be rewritten, and has been. Theological truth is mutable. Further, American revolutionary Rev. John Witherspoon was party to writing this American addition to WCF 23
…as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest.
In the least, this appears to give you the theological OK to stand up [urge our elected officials] against the Obama government’s assault on religious liberty, say Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius. [Although I suppose acc to your theology the Catholics aren’t Christian. Still, there’s a line that gets crossed.]
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 16, 2014 at 10:59 pm | Permalink
Tom – While “conservative” Christianity was busy forming circular firing squads, the liberals won.
Erik – I still don’t get your point. Where was the circular firing squad in this case?
I was speaking of American Christianity in general. With so many subsects, I admit I don’t know the ins and outs of the virtually 100s of Presbyterian schisms.
Erik Charter
Posted February 16, 2014 at 11:02 pm | Permalink
Tom,
If you’re seriously very interested in the period, I’ve got several books I could recommend. Hart’s “Defending the Faith” is a great place to start. The article in Hart & Noll’s American Presbyterian & Reformed Dictionary has a article on the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy that lists several others, all of which I’ve purchased.
“Defending the Faith” also has a really good bibliography — actually more of a bibliographical essay. It comes out of Hart’s Ph.D.
Sounds good. Unfortunately, “defending the faith” seems to be a distant memory. The “fundamentalists” lost.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/001-the-death-of-protestant-america-a-political-theory-of-the-protestant-mainline
LikeLike
FYI
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/02/11/presbyterian-church-usa-declare-war-on-the-jews-israel/
Fascinating, captain.
LikeLike
tVd, “Get in their way and they’ll come down on you bigtime.”
This is you. You are a secularist.
Or do you have a theology?
LikeLike
tvD, fundamentalists did win. Smoking.
LikeLike
Tom, more like make humble petition to step back from treading on the church’s conscience. Leave the “stand up against the government’s assault on religious liberty” for the hooha! warriors.
LikeLike
TVD- “In the least, this appears to give you the theological OK to stand up [urge our elected officials] against the Obama government’s assault on religious liberty, say Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius”
You continue to beat this dead horse. Under the actual facts of the case, if the Little Sisters LOSE and have to fill out the form that they object to, not ONE of their employees will in fact receive contraceptive services of the type the Sisters object to. Simply put, if there is an issue here, the Beckett Fund picked the wrong plaintiffs to raise it. When the lower Courts actually have a chance to consider the facts, as opposed to having to deal with “the sky is falling” motions, this case goes away, though I’m sure the culture warriors will still find a way to spin the inevitable outcome as a devastating blow to religious freedom.
LikeLike
http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/02/15/the-end-of-american-exceptionalism/
There will be dancing at z’s place. woot woot.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted February 17, 2014 at 8:34 am | Permalink
Tom, more like make humble petition to step back from treading on the church’s conscience. Leave the “stand up against the government’s assault on religious liberty” for the hooha! warriors.
And I’m the one who’s “above it all?”
Your WCF 23 revision–by American revolutionary Rev. John Witherspoon, et al.–could be read at least to stand up for religious freedom. Further, what can be revised can be unrevised, since you claim no active hand of God in the confessions anyway.
D. G. Hart
Posted February 17, 2014 at 6:10 am | Permalink
tvD, fundamentalists did win. Smoking.
Nah. The liberals won. Witherspoon’s church has gone gay and anti-Semitic. Good for you that you’re out of it, but they do more harm to your brand than Sarah Palin. We await your next book, whose aim is more true.
LikeLike
Who is We?
LikeLike
Tom, the other interpretation of WCF 23’s revision is that it is a form of repentance from the belief that true faith comes by and is nurtured (false vanquished and punished) at the point of the sword instead of the hand of the Spirit. More cultural and religious Calvinist differences.
And in case you don’t notice, the ability to repent comes refraining from claims of an infallible hand in confession writing. This as opposed to when infallibility is the rule, where all you can do is play the development game and have condemnation (Trent) co-exist with acceptance (V2). Again, confidence that one is right is worlds apart from claiming one can never be wrong.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted February 17, 2014 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
Tom, the other interpretation of WCF 23′s revision is that it is a form of repentance from the belief that true faith comes by and is nurtured (false vanquished and punished) at the point of the sword instead of the hand of the Spirit. More cultural and religious Calvinist differences.
And in case you don’t notice, the ability to repent comes refraining from claims of an infallible hand in confession writing. This as opposed to when infallibility is the rule, where all you can do is play the development game and have condemnation (Trent) co-exist with acceptance (V2). Again, confidence that one is right is worlds apart from claiming one can never be wrong.
Exactly. “Radical” Two Kingdoms theology may be wrong. That the church should be silent at the doings of an Adolf Hitler is of questionable Biblicity.
LikeLike
You know you’re losing the argument when you invoke the Nazis.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 17, 2014 at 3:40 pm | Permalink
You know you’re losing the argument when you invoke the Nazis.
Mostly true. But as the farmer replied when asked why he hit his mule over the head with a two by four, first you’ve got to get his attention.
In your case, you know the question of the church’s response to Hitler is historically and theologically relevant. Not that I was even addressing you, since I wouldn’t expect anything more than the customary evasions. It is Mr. Zrim who is engaging the discussion, and well.
LikeLike
Tom, until you religiously affiliate, your chiming in on what is biblical is like a Ugandan tutoring on what is constitutional. Still, it is only by the Protestant mechanism that you may question the biblicity of remaining politically silent in the face of a tyrant and others of us the biblicity of getting behind one American cause (or modern philosophy) or another.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted February 17, 2014 at 4:13 pm | Permalink
Tom, until you religiously affiliate, your chiming in on what is biblical is like a Ugandan tutoring on what is constitutional. Still, it is only by the Protestant mechanism that you may question the biblicity of remaining politically silent in the face of a tyrant and others of us the biblicity of getting behind one American cause (or modern philosophy) or another.
Oh, I understand the argument per Romans 13. But many or even most Calvinists have rejected it in the absolute form over the centuries, and do now. And I think many Christians agree to some level, that neither party is the depository of God’s truth. [The problem is that one of the parties is doing the work of Satan.]
But “radical” 2k attacks on other Christians implies a degree of certainty in your reading of the Bible that contradicts your attacks on Catholicism’s own certainties. And there’s the rub. I have questions about your theology, since I’m familiar with those–even Calvinists–who reject it, at least its absolutism. But it could be correct, not saying it isn’t. In the least it holds a needed caution against letting the state get too cozy with the church. That’s what started the Puritan revolution, you know, the government trying to impose the Book of Common Prayer on the Calvinists.
LikeLike
Relevant to what? Obama?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 17, 2014 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
Relevant to what? Obama?
Sarah Palin.
LikeLike
Tom, neither even the revised Belgic 36 (“Moreover everyone, regardless of status, condition, or rank, must be subject to the government, and pay taxes, and hold its representatives in honor and respect, and obey them in all things that are not in conflict with God’s Word, praying for them that the Lord may be willing to lead them in all their ways and that we may live a peaceful and quiet life in all piety and decency”) nor the revised WCF 23 (“It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrates’ just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted, much less has the Pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever”) sound at all like a rejection of a robust 2k interpretation Romans 13 and other biblical passages on the due submission and obedience to civil magistrates.
But how a persuaded 2k outlook undermines the shared Reformed critique of Catholicism’s claims of infallible superiority isn’t as obvious. From 2kers to theonomist, none claims that his view is infallible. Theos may charge 2kers with degeneracy and 2kers may say theonomy is a function of unbelief (different statements, by the way), both being fully persuaded of the relative biblicity of the respective views, but neither approaches the audacity of Roman claims. So how odd to tag 2kers with rrrrradical absolutism while Catholicism’s selective infallibility gets a pass.
LikeLike
So how odd to tag 2kers with rrrrradical absolutism while Catholicism’s selective infallibility gets a pass.
Your standards, not mine. If you claimed the Holy Spirit gave you the Confessions, I wouldn’t dispute your truth claim. I’m not sure why you don’t comprehend or recall that clarification; I’ve made it often.
That said, some [radical] 2kers seem awful sure about themselves to criticize others.
As for Belgic 36, I do read this blog. Belgic 36 is the one Abraham Kuyper disputed, and as I write above, your confessional articles can be [and have been] revised. Whose Calvinism is it anyway?
http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-9-number-1/whose-liberty-which-religion-acton-and-kuyper
LikeLike
Tom, it’s not mere disputation that bothers. It’s why the Reformed recognition of human limitation comes in for relentless criticism while Catholic claims of human infallibility get a pass. You’re like the limited government advocate saying, “If you Republicans would just apply expansionist principles of governance, e.g. get abortion outlawed in every nook and cranny of the union, I’d lay off your claim to be conservative.” Huh? Oh, I see, a liberal (Catholic) in conservative (Reformed) dress.
The Son promised to send the Spirit to guide the church into all truth. So the Spirit is involved in the confessions, creeds, and catechisms. No good confessional Protestant has any trouble seeing that they are the gifts of God to his church.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted February 17, 2014 at 7:35 pm | Permalink
Tom, it’s not mere disputation that bothers. It’s why the Reformed recognition of human limitation comes in for relentless criticism while Catholic claims of human infallibility get a pass. You’re like the limited government advocate saying, “If you Republicans would just apply expansionist principles of governance, e.g. get abortion outlawed in every nook and cranny of the union, I’d lay off your claim to be conservative.” Huh? Oh, I see, a liberal (Catholic) in conservative (Reformed) dress.
The Son promised to send the Spirit to guide the church into all truth. So the Spirit is involved in the confessions, creeds, and catechisms. No good confessional Protestant has any trouble seeing that they are the gifts of God to his church.
I’ve seen any claim to the direct hand of the Holy Spirit assiduously avoided when it comes to the Confessions, via a neat rhetorical trick that claims they’re sola scriptura, and it’s the scriptures that are inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The light is conspicuous by its absence. Further, how can you revise the Holy Spirit? Yet you have.
Which as we see WCF 31 clearly is theology, not scripture, and one of the [now-rejected] articles called the pope the anti-Christ. Indeed why do you need confessions atall if you have the Bible?
Something’s up.
As for the Catholic claim to infallibility, mebbe they’re wrong about not being wrong, but that doesn’t make you right.
BTW, I wonder how the Catholic Patrick Dineen feels about Darryl Hart using him as a springboard against his own church? Sort of where I’m going with all this more than the politics itself. I can see both sides. There was an excellent analysis in the slavery days that Jesus didn’t start His Church just to start a war on slavery–Christianity would have become a bloody political movement in this world instead of the doorway to the next.
But neither did it mean Jesus [or Paul in Romans 13] actually approved of slavery, or that we should do nothing when the opportunity arose.
LikeLike
FTR, Peter Lawler replies to Patrick Dineen. [Word up, Darryl.]
Heh. His argument follows, though this blog’s interest is in the intraCatholic drama and how it might be used against Rome.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/02/catholic-and-ambiguous-pro-american-and-quirky-about-it
LikeLike
In the recent Clair Davis defense of union-priority and the “both/and” views of Norman Shepherd and Richard Gaffin and John Frame and Bill Evans, Davis explains why he thinks our present situation demands a more catholic and comprehensive approach.
Davis: “As the… reality of Satan’s America becomes sharper, we are aware that the gospel is the ultimate hate crime and that we who express it must take the consequences, with our Jesus who was there first. ”
Davis: “I’m starting to think that the Western side of our faith may well be helped by looking again at the Eastern side, with its deep appreciation of union through the incarnation.”
Davis: “The Wesley/Whitefield Awakening with its emphasis on the need for us to be born again was … comprehensive, more I believe than those later concentrating solely on deliverance from the wrath of God.
http://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/united-with-the-risen-jesus/
LikeLike
Satan’s America?
Back to the good-old-days of Prohibition, Jim Crow, and Protestant Liberalism when Satan was caged!
LikeLike
tVD, so Palin is Hitler? Or she’s standing up to Hitler?
Paranoia.
LikeLike
zrim, remember, Tvd was reared Roman Catholic.
LikeLike
saw this a week ago. can you explain what America has to do with salvation from the guilt and penalty of sin? Or can you account for one day the popes are telling U.S. RC’s that adapting the church to America is a heresy and the next we’re defining the faith along the lines of pro- or anti-American exceptionalism.
LikeLike
Tom – BTW, I wonder how the Catholic Patrick Dineen feels about Darryl Hart using him as a springboard against his own church? Sort of where I’m going with all this more than the politics itself. I can see both sides. There was an excellent analysis in the slavery days that Jesus didn’t start His Church just to start a war on slavery–Christianity would have become a bloody political movement in this world instead of the doorway to the next.
But neither did it mean Jesus [or Paul in Romans 13] actually approved of slavery, or that we should do nothing when the opportunity arose.
Erik –
(1) So what is the result of “seeing both sides”? Where do you find yourself on Sunday mornings?
(2) The “excellent analysis” sounds rather 2K
(3) The opportunity did arise and we fought a Civil War. Lincoln emancipated the slaves. Slavery became extinct in other parts of the Western world before that.
Tom – Heh. His argument follows, though this blog’s interest is in the intraCatholic drama and how it might be used against Rome.
Erik – Why are Catholics creating intraCatholic drama that can be used against Rome if they have an infallible leader with the ability to do away with such drama?
LikeLike
Tom, we need the confessions because the Bible demands interpretation and believers need understanding (contra the biblicists), but we don’t need a Magisterium because we already have the Bible (contra the Catholics). And nobody is saying that the Magisterium being wrong makes Protestantism right, rather that to be wrong at any point is to instantly lose infallibility.
LikeLike
Darryl, you can take the boy out of Catholicism…
LikeLike