Various and Sundry
March 19th, 2007 | by Scott |–One bad thing about Wordpress is that it is overly spam-friendly. I have a good filter but occasionally a few get through onto my comments. And sometimes legitimate comments get hung up for moderation or swooped up in the spam filter. I don’t moderate comments with the exception of one individual who posted several offensive comments about me some months ago. Over the past few days the number of spam messages getting caught by my filter has topped out at about 2000 per day. 2000! As a result, I may have lost some comments in the mix. If so, I apologize for that. I have added an additional layer of spam protection so hopefully I’ll quit being deluged. If you get lost in the mix please let me know. The last thing I want to do is go all blogger on my comments and require people to enter squiggly letters. I hate that.
–You can also see that I added a new feature where you can subscribe to comments. This will inform you when there are follow-ups to your comments to aid discussion.
–Soulforce is at Baylor. But Baylor ain’t talking. The VP of Student Life has stated that they are “committed to treating the riders with Christian grace and love” but that they “would not grant their requests for university-approved dialogue.” More as it unfolds.
–Stan Heath. In or out? I personally think it might be time to part ways.
–I’ve blogged a bit recently about whether or not there is room at the church table for those with differing views. I have a follow-up question for you before I proceed with a series I want to do: what doctrines or beliefs do you currently hold that you feel either need to be re-examined or you hold without having done much study on? In other words, is there any aspect of our faith and belief system that you have just always assumed to be true? My view of hell has fallen in that category.
41 Responses to “Various and Sundry”
By JAW on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
Scott -
FYI:
http://seaver.pepperdine.edu/studentaffairs/studentactivities/specialevents/equalityride/PepperdineEqualityRideProgram.pdf
JAW
By greg on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
I heard rumors last week that Heath’s name was mentioned regarding jobs at Minnesota & Michigan. I don’t know who was doing the mentioning. Perhaps it was Arkansas fans
I have heard, however, that his wife is not happy here and would like to head back north. He could very well leave on his own. I’ll be anxious to see how this all works out.
Did you see Elrod’s post today? I nearly fell out of my chair.
By matt elliott on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
Sorry about those offensive comments a few months ago. I don’t know what I was thinking.
By Scott on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
JAW, I like the looks of what Pepperdine is doing. I just went out to their press conference here in Waco and their logistics director was happy about the reception they have received thus far. Just no formal dialogue.
Greg, I met Stan Heath’s parents in Grand Rapids Michigan a few years back. It might be a better fit for him up there. I like him but I’m starting to wonder about his chances for success.
By Scott on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
Matt, that’s why I gave up your blog
By Politics and Culture on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
Scott –
Concerning the Soulforce thing, here is a question that was asked of me back when they visited ACU:
“Would/should ACU similarly welcome a group of Klansmen?
It seems to me that is the best analogy: a group people who embrace something that others consider a sin. The core conflict is whether the underlying thing (whether homosexuality or racism) is or is not sinful. Everything else–such as which side is more civil toward the other–is just window-dressing.
Being civil to people you disagree with may be noble and admirable in most situations. However, I wonder whether those who applaud civility towards people who advocate the acceptance of homosexual behavior would also applaud civility towards people who advocate the acceptance of racist behavior. Should they? What’s the difference?”
What do you think?
By Scott on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
I don’t think that is a good analogy at all. One seeks to hate, the other seeks acceptance.
We can debate the right/wrongness of homosexual behavior all day but to me the more appropriate discussion to begin with should be our loving response to all people.
Being civil is not window-dressing to me.
By Jeff on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
I would also like to re-examine my views on hell. I Al Maxey has some writings taking a non-traditional view avialable for free on his website: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/topic.htm. If you’re not familiar with Mr. Maxey, his writings are always VERY well written and researched.
Other topics on my “to re-examine” list:
~ Gender Roles
~ Biblical role of government
~ Trinitarianism
~ Liturgy
~ The Holy Spirit
~ War/Non-Violence (I blame you, Scott, for confusing me on this! Thanks!)
By Politics and Culture on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
Scott,
Let me say upfront that I think ACU handled the Soulforce visit very well. But I think the question I posted has some merit.
I don’t think the analogy is that far off. Both groups are asking for us to accept their lifestyle, and neither group believes that what they’re doing is sinful.
We say we should love, accept and have dialogue with the homosexuals. Why can’t we do the same with the Klansmen?
If a busload of Klansmen came to ACU wanting to dialogue with students, display their art and make a few presentations, what would be the appropriate resonse from the ACU administration?
By Scott on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
But the purpose of both groups is vastly different. One wants acceptance, inclusion and civil rights. Lifestyle choice aside that is their aim.
The other wants to exclude, demonize and deny civil rights.
If anybody else wants to weigh in here that would be great but I see a VAST difference between the two groups.
But I also think there needs to be dialogue with those who are so riddled by hatred.
By KS on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
There is a big difference, but do find it ironic that we will overlook politically correct sins and be very against other sins.
By Scott on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
Sigh, this has nothing to do with politically correct or not. It does have everything to do with how we treat people. Especially sinners.
I think it is even more ironic that we will preach the love of God and extol passages about caring for the least of these and point to Jesus and his care for the adulterous woman and the woman at the well but we are so slow and reluctant to give love to others.
By matt elliott on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
Scott, I’m with you. There’s a HUGE difference between a group which may or may not be erring on the side of mercy and a group with a long heritage of hatred, racism, and torture.
Huge.
Did I mention “huge”?
PC is not the point.
By Jonathan on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
There’s certainly a big difference.
From the standpoint of our civil society, the practice of homosexuality is legal (as it should be). Discrimination and violence against minorities is not. Therefore, from the standpoint of our society, one should be tolerated (regardless of whether or not I personally approve) and the other should not.
Let’s not confuse being civil towards with approving. Regardless, I think there is a nugget in P and C’s questions: namely, that we should be consistent. That we should not write off any individual but should be ready to be civil and show show love to all (including racists).
By matt elliott on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
I have no problem with that, Jonathan, and I believe that as well. Having attended churches in the south my entire life, I assure you that I have had plenty of practice loving people with racist tendencies.
Seriously, though — I have! It could ONLY be the Holy Spirit at work, that’s for sure…
By scott on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
I agree as well. Of course we need to be loving to those who are filled with hate. Hence my comment at the end of comment 10.
By len on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
Stan Heath is a good coach and, I think, an even better man. But I believe that he is like some pastors I know. He just isn’t in a good fit and needs to move elsewhere.
By Jeff_R on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
RE:Analogies. I think there is a legitimate point made and, sorry Scott, the fact that some find the “sin” of the racist offensive and the “sin” of the homosexual less (non-?) offensive is the political correctness issue - at least if you define political correctness as cultural sensitivity and ethical judgment.
In the past, when racism was “more” acceptable, there was active dialogue in the church on the topic that was considered healthy, appropriate and constructive (and, yes, even civil) - go back and read your early 20th century history. Many church pulpits were filled with racist rhetoric that was regarded as sound preaching by not a small number of professing Christians.
But times have changed.
What is at issue is specifically what has changed since then.
Has racism become a sin in the eyes of the church where it once wasn’t? Yes. And that’s a tremendously good move.
So….
Has homosexuality now becoming less of a “sin” in the eyes of the church? I think so. And I think that, too, is a move in the right direction.
Trying to couch the difference in terms of things like acceptance and love is just a red herring for saying that we don’t find one practice/behavior as offensive as another based on the prevailing sentiment of the culture. This may or may not have any bearing on the rightness of either behavior, but it will have a lot to do with how the subject is received or dismissed by the culture and, therefore, the church.
This cultural shift explains the reactions noted on this blog and why the proposed analogy is useful and informative to help us understand the shifting ground (which we think solid) beneath us.
As Scott said, some may still conclude homosexual behavior to be sinful, but it will undoubtedly and at a minimum shift from the pantheon of “horrendous” sins and into the commonplace along with gluttony and greed. Whereas racism will continue its upward ascent to the pinnacle of unforgivable sins - perhaps even ultimately taking the now vacant slot in the DSM long-since emptied by homosexuality as a psychological disorder. Cf., Michael Richards, Isaiah Washington and Mel Gibson.
Then again, I could be wrong.
By scott on Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
Jeff, I hear you but I have to disagree. I don’t think that trying to focus on love and acceptance can be reduced to a mere red herring. How we love and treat people is the key issue. Sure, the analogy can help us to understand how far we have come and how far we have yet to go.
But the two groups, homosexuals and members of the Klan, are not analogous to each other. The cultural landscape may be but the groups are not.
By Jeff_R on Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
Scott -
You write,
“the two groups, homosexuals and members of the Klan, are not analogous to each other”
That’s not what I said. The analogy is about the reactions to these groups showing up on a college campus for a public dialogue. The analogy was not about the nature of the groups themselves.
And further, I think you’re missing the point. You say:
I don’t think that trying to focus on love and acceptance can be reduced to a mere red herring
But, wait, who are you talking about being loving and accepting? The receiving college or the arriving group?
If this is about “our” love and acceptance, then shouldn’t the receiving group welcome the racists seeking dialogue as eagerly as they welcome the homosexuals? That’s the point of the analogy.
You earlier wrote,
“One [group] wants acceptance, inclusion and civil rights…[t]he other wants to exclude, demonize and deny civil rights”
And my earlier point was that both base their positions on the hamartology of their characteristic behavior and that we can see the shift in morality based on the reaction to the two groups showing up for a dialogue. The shift is not because we “are more loving and caring” now than in the past - that is the red herring - the shift is in the way we view the subject behaviors.
By Scott on Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
Oh, Gotcha. Maybe I’m reading too much into the original analogy. I got the impression from the original that since both groups are sinful they can be equated.
By Jeff_R on Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
In my way of thinking, what we’re seeing is an evolution of human civilization where “sins” characterized by exclusion, omission, alienation and objectification (think racism, gender discrimination, religious discrimination, etc.) are being perceived as more dangerous, onerous and offensive than personal moral sins (adultery, fornication, etc.). This is a fundamental shift in hamartology. Some people think it’s a shift in the wrong direction. I think it’s a shift in the right direction because it seems to more accurately reflect the way Jesus looked at the world and the people around him.
By Scott on Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
Great observation, Jeff. That aligns with a more fleshed out soteriology that moves beyond the “personal decision” and see salvation as being worked out in community.
By matt elliott on Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
This is a great discussion. Thanks for your observations, Jeff. And kudos to you, Scott, for using the word “soteriology” in a sentence.
By Scott on Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
I had to drop that one since Jeff keeps busting out hamartology. Just showing I can hang.
By len on Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
Good conversation. I appreciate that the community of belief as a whole is being emphasized.
If we start viewing certain sins more accurately (racism, homophobia, discremination, genderism, etc.) does that necessarily mean that we have to soften our view on the personal sins? I’m pretty sure that Jesus does not have a soft view on adultery. I look out every Sunday and see the faces of dozens affected by that very personal sin of adultery. The people who committed adultery may not be sitting in the pew of my church, but our community is bearing the brunt of that sin’s outcome. I propose that we point out how personal moral sins have such a profound affect on the community as a whole. Jesus taught that my lustful glance did have a price and a consequence and I believe that consequence played out in the community.
That is just my soteriological and harmartological opinion of course.
By Jeff_R on Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
Len -
I’m primarily pointing out what is happening, and not necessarily that it is what should happen.
However, I believe the trend toward taken a “communal” view of sin is a good one. And by that I mean that certain sins are shedding their mystical mantle of speciality and that sins are being more appropriately treated/responded to based on their impact on the community.
So while lust may be a real and personal sin, the impact on the community is less than soliciting a prostitute - where I “join my sin” with other people.
Same for adultery.
Thus communal sins like racism, classism, etc. are especially harmful in a community - but are only recently being treated with the weight I believe the biblical narrative would enjoin us to.
In the past, such sins were treated as “lesser” sins whereas a lot of preaching and teaching was done on the evils of lusting, for example.
That balance is shifting and the shift itself is a good one, IMHO. But, obviously, a radical swing to the other extreme would have it’s own problems. So it’s not an either/or proposition.
By len on Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
I used 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 in a lesson just last week. I pointed out that there were several sins listed and that none was given special treatment over the others, including the 2 homosexual sins listed. Then there are Paul’s great words, “and such were some of you…” Sadly, far too many in the church wouldn’t be willing to apply that the way Paul did. Any steps being taken in that direction by the church are good steps indeed. I just hope that we don’t jettison what we have gotten right in the process. Good stuff, Jeff.
I don’t think we should ever downplay the power of a thought. We have adultery because we have lust. We have murder because we have hate and anger. We have racism because there is the thought that I am superior to another.
By Scott on Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
Len, even those sins you mentioned have their weight because of how it affects the other. Adultery destroys lives. Lust objectifies another. Hate and anger demonizes and vilifies another. The communal aspect there needs to be focused on rather than just the personal holiness code we have tended to hone in on.
Great thoughts all around.
By Jeff_R on Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
Len -
I’d recommend some fantastic reading over at Richard Beck’s site, experiential theology for some powerful ideas on moral behavior.
By matt elliott on Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
Gosh, this is good stuff. That’s SUCH a good point about recognizing “personal” sins for how they impact the community. Have I said thanks for this discussion yet??
By Scott on Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
Matt, I may be described as being too simplistic but the way I try to approach things these days is how they line up against the two commandments.
Sin, to me, is simple: failing to love God and failing to love people.
All else is window dressing.
By Jonathan on Mar 20, 2007 | Reply
To reexamine:
the nature of prayer, for example relative to this episcopal priests comments excerpted here and the “why don’t God heal amputees” question summarized here.
By JTB on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
Not to show off or anything but I believe “harmatiology” is the preferred variation of the term in the theological texts I’ve encountered.
I also would like to say thanks for Jeff R’s comments above (esp #22). The idea that one can be personally pious (following the rules, keeping one’s conscience clean) and therefore righteous, without any reference to the other (or in more biblical phrasing, one’s neighbor) is, I think, a particularly dangerous theological mistake to make. It exchanges the ideal of goodness for purity, and can be used to justify a great deal of horrific behaviors in the guise of piety.
Bonhoeffer had some great stuff to say in the Ethics on this point.
To follow #33: prayer is something I admitted while wording our communal prayer at church last Sunday that I don’t get but do anyway.
By Scott on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
I don’t get prayer very well either. Tracy is great at it but it’s something I struggle with greatly.
By Jeff_R on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
JTB - spell check is not “showing off”
RE:Prayer, has anyone listened to this podcast with John Polkinghorne? Fascinating and resonate comments on effectual prayer. BTW, Speaking of Faith is great - I highly recommend it.
By Jeff_R on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
Plus, I think it’s hamartiology anyway. Also,
By JTB on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
I am so chagrined. I will never try o sound smart on this blog again. Is there a smiley somewhere with a bright red blush of embarrassment that could follow this comment???
By JTB on Mar 22, 2007 | Reply
Just another plug for Polkinghorne–one of the big names in theology & science circles. A physicist turned theologian, I believe.
By Colleen on Mar 23, 2007 | Reply
Any insights on prayer in a series would be great…I don’t have any trouble expressing myself privately, but how does one cultivate listening above all the chaos, din and distraction of everyday life. The balance always seems off to me.
By Scott on Mar 23, 2007 | Reply
One of these days I’m gonna start listening to podcasts.
Colleen, that’s a hard one. I struggle with all of it, honestly.