There are a few conservative Christian doctrines, most of which I agree with, that drive religious and non-religious liberals to hysterics. I thought to list and study them, and see where the conservatives might be off in their emphasis, or perhaps in the entire doctrine:
- Homosexuality is sin
- Women are not allowed in church leadership. or as pastors
- Hell is a real place that all who don’t believe in Christ are going to, for eternity
- Biblical priniciple has a place in public policy
- Abortion is murder
- Culture is not sacrosanct, and it is acceptable to send missionaries to foreign cultures
- The Bible is the only, inspired, inerrant word of God
Did I miss any?
I'd agree that those are incredibly irritating, and at times, exceedingly condescending.
Another one is the doctrine of Original Sin – this says that we are guilty becuase we *inherited* the guilt of Adam, and when we inevitably sin, it does not suddenly cause us to be sinners, it confirms what is already there – that we ARE sinners.
Yeah, well, that's positively ridiculous. It means that an innocent child, allegedly of the utmost value to you, it sinful. That's absolutely absurd.
The only hysterical one here is the owner of this blog. Be that as it may, some observations.
-Homosexuality is NOT a sin-Scripture does not define it that way.
-Women are allowed in all areas of church life-The Bible says so.
-Hell is real enough-but Seeker does not know who is going there
-Biblical principles tell us to clearly separate church & state.
-Abortion is a terrible thing-whether it rises to the level of murder calls for more thought and nuance than is usually provided by the right wing.
-Culture is not sacrosanct-it is imperative that we send missionaries to foreign places-like Texas.
-The Bible is inerrant*? Were in the Bible does it say that?
*If by inerrant you mean creation in 6-24hour days, the Earth 6000 years old etc.
Culture is not sacrosanct-it is imperative that we send missionaries to foreign places-like Texas.
ROFL!
-Homosexuality is NOT a sin-Scripture does not define it that way.
Yeah, well, you made your case. I disagree, and with good reason. You can assail me all day with accusations if you like. I merely believe that your exegesis is lacking.
-Women are allowed in all areas of church life-The Bible says so.
Actually, your exposition of what it means for a wife to obey her husband is incorrect. While “true religion” involves, as James wrote, helping the poor and the widow, the comparison to Christ is describing the relationship between husband and wife, not wife and the poor. And what is our relationship to Christ? Loving submission and obedience. And it does not stipulate, btw, that the woman must only do so if the man loves her as Christ loves the church. In fact, if she wants to follow the example of Christ, she must love him even if he is imperfect, or even not a believer. The only limit is if he is abusive or asking her to sin.
Despite the egalitarian approach to women that the bible takes in many places, including submission to one another, Christianity distinctly describes an authority relationship between husband and wife that liberals don’t like because they (1) have a hard time conceiving of such a relationship that is not abusive, and (2) don’t recognize God’s order for marriage and for authority in general.
-Hell is real enough-but Seeker does not know who is going there
True, but the bible does describe who is going there and why, and gives us each enough information to judge ourselves. It is clear that those who do not believe the gospel are going there. You tell me you don’t believe and reject the gospel, we can both safely bet that you’ve also chosen hell. Who knows for sure? No one. But can you KNOW for yourself if you are saved? Yes. But not if you haven’t heard and understood the gospel.
-Biblical principles tell us to clearly separate church & state.
Actually, that’s not true at all, though this statement is sufficiently vague to ensure that people might agree with it. Scripture *is* clear that (1) Christ’s kingdom is not one of this world, that (2) the faith is not spread via civil government or coersion, and (3) we should not mix church and state power structures.
However, regarding the Christian’s involvement with civil government, there are actually at least three distinct doctrines, not just one simplistic “all or nothing” appraoch (i.e. theocracy or secularism), as outlined well in such books as Uneasy Neighbors: Church and State in the New Testament. The author discusses submissive confidence, deep resistance, and critical distancing.
In addition to these views, he also outlines the biblical responsibilities of civil government:
I would say that much of the biblical, non-religious approach to government, as I have oft outlined, is appropriate. The scriptures, however, do NOT prohibit Christian values or involvement in civil government. Only the mixing of power structures.
-Abortion is a terrible thing-whether it rises to the level of murder calls for more thought and nuance than is usually provided by the right wing.
True, and more concern for the unborn than is usually provided by the left. That’s why I have proposed establishing a legal “point of personhood” by a realistic standard similar to those we use for end of life issues, rather than a zygote or birth marker, both of which are extreme.
-Culture is not sacrosanct-it is imperative that we send missionaries to foreign places-like Texas.
Well, missionaries belong everywhere. Heck, America has become so unchristian in many places that countries like Korea are sending missionaries HERE. Fine with me.
-The Bible is inerrant*? Were in the Bible does it say that?
Yep, that’s a more recent development, which Neo-fundamentalist does a good job of decontructing in Inspiration and Authority – Introduction, but to put it shortly, this doctrine is nuanced, and support for the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture (though there are many flavors of inerrancy) can be argued from the scripture even if there is no direct reference. Such doctrines as the Trinity are not mentioned by name either, but that does not make them untrue.
The real question here is not what makes liberals mad, but why bother with this at all. It's hogwash: there's not a jot of evidence for any of the statements seeker so kindly provided. I'd as soon believe in the Greek Pantheon, or the Norse gods, as Christianity. Their opinions are irrelevant to everyone but those misguided enough to be swayed by them.
Seeker,
You know, I wouldn't have any real objections to this madness if you didn't try to enshrine it as law wherever you could. If you actually believe that women should be submissive to men, well, that's your own failing as a human being. It's when you try to write that into law that I object. And obviously, when you aggressively write gay hatred into law, that I object to as well.
FCL, why would seeker list those doctrines as one that anyone hates?
The list was not "My Favorite Doctrinal Positions" by Seeker, it was a list of controversial doctrines, disliked by those on the left.
Sam, besides not supporting gay marriage, what is one law that seeker has supported to enshire his beliefs?
Louise, there is a big difference. None of the gods of Greece or Norse mythology ever existed. Jesus was an actual person who lived, walked and taught on this Earth. You have the respond to the historical evidence of that person. He is not so easily dismissed as you would like.
A. Thor was real. Check the comic books.
B. So was Aquaman.
C. As we've long discussed, if we gave Seeker unlimited power, we'd be immediately skip back to the Middle Ages, as the freedoms of everybody that Seeker disagreed with would be immediately rolled back. What's interesting about that is that if I had all of the power in the world to do what I wanted, your life wouldn't change Aaron; neither would Seeker's. If you guys had all the power to do whatever you wanted? I can guarantee that my life would change.
Actually Sam, if I was president and had a like minded Congress, you life wouldn't change much, if any. My point was to get you beyond the hyperbole and to actual examples of seeker's proposed freedom rollbacks or beliefs enshrined in law.
Sometimes seeker does a poor job of representing his views to you guys. He is more moderate than I am, yet you think you wants to establish a theocracy and take all your freedoms away. You have no evidence for that, simply what you think he would do based on your perception of him.
But you will get your chance to see soon enough. Seeker and I both are high ups in the evil Conservative theocracy plan, once the preperations are finalized we will ascend to our rightful thrones as rulers of West Virginian, we've requested that state specifically to lord over Sam.
Oh Aaron,
You're so delightful when you're being condescending. Are you genuinely telling me that if Pat Robertson, or Rick Warren, or Jerry Falwell started running the country, our lives would remain the same? That they'd stand up for the notion that all individuals are individuals first, and free to make their own decisions without government interference? I mean, seriously? You cannot honestly expect me to trust a Christian to run this country and not make aggressive moves against my freedoms.
What really gets me is that those moves wouldn't bother you, because they wouldn't affect YOUR LIFE. You say, "Well, I don't like pornography, so its availability, or lack therof, isn't concerning." Of course, for the people who like pornography, its restriction, and possible illegality, becomes a serious problem. And currently, with a Christian in charge, we have our Justice Department investigating pornography. Not child abuse mind you, but pornography. You act as though Christians wouldn't go hogwild on that which they disagree with: birth control, abortion, education, movies, music, homosexuality, etc. In any way that they could, (Some) Christians would attempt to restrict the freedoms of those who enjoy that which they do not. That doesn't threaten you, because nobody's taking away your freedoms. I'm irritated however, because my enjoyment of whatever it is threatened.
Sometimes seeker does a poor job of representing his views to you guys. He is more moderate than I am, yet you think you wants to establish a theocracy and take all your freedoms away. You have no evidence for that, simply what you think he would do based on your perception of him.
Well, my strong language and firmness on the sinfulness of homosexuality basically kicks Sam's internal stereoptypes into high gear, and he no longer sees the reality, but rather, his extreme view of what I and those like me must beleive. Assuming the worst, he honestly believes that the warped, extreme, alarmist liberal view of the opposition in his mind is reality. In fact, he is captive to it, and ceases to believe any new information that might be contrary to it.
You cannot honestly expect me to trust a Christian to run this country and not make aggressive moves against my freedoms.
I half agree with Sam here, and do see his point. I would not like a Dominionist state that outlaws everything. I personally think that some things should be regulated, rather than prohibited, including the production and sale of porno, the Plan B pill, movies, music. As i have said, I am against the criminalization of homosexuality, as well as the sacntioning of it by forcing the state to recognize it as normative.
The hard core righties make me nervous, but not that nervous becuause, unlike Sam, I am aware that there are many conservative Christians who are not Dominionists, not led like sheep by Dobson (whom I do not dislike), and who realize that a prohibition state doesn't work.
Yes, Aaron, Jesus probably lived and breathed and farted and walked around until he got in trouble for his rabble-rousing ways. That doesn't prove that he was God or that he died for the sins of the world. There is no proof for that. If you think that what the bible claims is proof…well, then, any tract written by partisans for a cause constitutes "proof."
Besides, how do you know Thor and Odin and Zeus and Apollo didn't/don't exist? I see as much proof for their existence as I do for the god of Abraham (they've certainly caused a lot less trouble for the world).
Didn't I already solve this Thor connundrum? There was a comic book people. A comic book. What more in the way of evidence do you disbelievers require?
As for Seeker's insulting of my opinion, I obviously disagree. And as I've said on numerous occaisons, I believe in a limited government that doesn't interfere in the private lives of citizens, particularly when their private lives don't hurt anybody else. Because homosexuality doesn't hurt anybody else – except for Seeker, who it apparently mortally wounds – it would be treated as heterosexuality is.
My views are consistent with a small-government almost-libertarian. Your views, although you proclaim to support small-government, are more inline with large government micromanagement of our lives. I mean, look at Seeker suggesting the regulation of produced pornography between consenting adults. The notion that you're comfortable with scrapping the freedom of the press, and individual freedom to make decisions, to perhaps protect children (if absent pornography really protects children, and it surely doesn't), is obscene to me.
That's why you can't trust Christians to helm a government.
proclaim to support small-government, are more inline with large government micromanagement of our lives.
This is too vague, there are two facets to examine – social and fiscal policy. I am for a small government fiscally, and minimal government socially, but not as minialist as you.
suggesting the regulation of produced pornography between consenting adults.
Sorry, you just made that up out of your internal stereotype of me. I never said that. By regulation, in this case, I mean that it should not be sold to minors, and that we should protect minors from it with other actions, like keeping it hard to get via other media streams. However, I also think that within the industry, there are lots of things which need to be fixed, like child porno and trafficking, even adult human trafficking. Pornography has been linked, not only to human trafficking, but directly to prositution, drug use, and violence against women. But if you want to buy a Girls Gone Wild video, have at it.
The notion that you're comfortable with scrapping the freedom of the press, and individual freedom to make decisions, to perhaps protect children (if absent pornography really protects children, and it surely doesn't), is obscene to me.
Scrapping freedom of the press? How is that, by regulating the means of distribution of porno? Sorry, but I don't believe in an unrestricted freedom of the press, and only a fool would. By that rule, you could allow slander (or is it libel?). You sound like a libertarian who calls anyone to the left of your position a fascist. Silly.
You say porno doesn't harm children? Or that keeping it away from them doesn't make a difference? I'd say you'd have to prove it. I've seen reports that agree with you , but I beleive them as much as I beleive other anti-intuitive science results – I need to see more studies, and not just by people biased one way.
As you might know, other "experts" disagree , and you can read the results of the Meese Commission at wikiepedia.
And I would rather err on the side of caution and common sense in order to protect children. I don't mind forcing porn addicts and other reprobates from having to work a little harder to feed their porn habits in order to protect children.
If you're so desperate to protect children, why aren't you advocating prison for parents who beat their children? If you're so desperate to protect children, why aren't you advocating for a War on Child Abuse instead of a War on Drugs (or Pornography)? If you're so desperate to protect children, why don't you do something that will actually protect children, instead of simply limiting my access, and freedom to access, various "media streams?"
Seeker,
I will set aside your error filled analysis of homosexuality as a "sin" and the other mistakes you made in regard to the wide range of topics under discussion and address your point about the relationship between husbands and wives as it is addressed in EPH 5. If the man is head of the wife like Christ is head of the church then we need to understand what Christ is to the church to understand what the man is to be to his wife. Christ was to the church a servant. He gave everything to His people, even unto a death on a cross. In this way a husband is to give everything to his wife as Christ gave to his church. My point stands.
Aaron,
The point of my listing of several doctrines was not to imply that anyone would hate them. I was wondering aloud why it is that the right-wing rarely talks about these aspects of the faith, which are in fact core to the idea of what it means to be a Christian and reflect Christ in the world.
The other point about my list of doctrine versus Seeker’s is that his are:
1. Not supported by Scripture
2. Means by which the circle of Christian fellowship is narrowed
The list I offered is a way to bring people to Christ in a way that accepts the challenge He placed before us as well as affirm our faith in Him.
Christ was to the church a servant.
Yes, well you are good at stating half truths, but again, the servant part is for the *husband*.
But when talking about the wife, he is talking about spiritual authority – humble submission and obedience.
"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord."
Why do you miss that? Because you don't like it. Because you look at authority, submission and obedience from an unrenewed perspective, tainted by worldly visions of abuse. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and twisting the scriptures to say something nice and neutered by feminist liberalism.
Typical of theological liberalism, you focus on grace but not truth, servanthood but not submission.
I will set aside your error filled analysis of homosexuality
You are so gracious to overlook my doctrinal errors, and of course, I will overlook yours in the same spirit ;) Actually, I understand your position, but I find fault with it. But I don't judge you for your position, heck, you may be right. But as of now, I find your hermeneutic weak. So we'll each have to keep walking with our own interpretation.
I was wondering aloud why it is that the right-wing rarely talks about these aspects of the faith,
There are many possible reasons why you have this impression:
1. Many churches, unfortunately, are more focused on politics and condemnation than the gospel. It is easier to talk than to serve.
2. The media likes to focus on contentious issues, while ignoring the many many ministries that actually do the works you are discussing
3. By it's very nature, the world loves mercy and handouts, but hates the moral truths (remember, "grace AND truth met in Jesus Christ" and so when these are presented, they generate more obvious commotion.
Even on this blog it is true. Many of my posts on these more germaine subjects generate almost no comment (nor credit for me), and of course, the ones that get commented on more seem to be the "majority" of posts. Admittedly, they are more about logistics and doctrine than compassion, as you have noted.