This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Where Christianity intersects with politics, culture, and entertainment.


orthodoxcross

Orthodoxy and Silence in the Public Square

Chesterton famously wrote, “There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy.”

With the furor arising from some corners upon the release of his new book, Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics, Ross Douthat might be inclined to add to the big man’s dictum, “or anything so willfully misunderstood and resisted.”

Douthat's book is a neatly laid-out dissertation on the people of faith and their place in American society. It is a deft chronicle of where faith communities went right—spanning a heyday of religious commentary and social activism, from John Courtney Murray to Martin Luther King—where they gravely misstepped (through over-accommodation, self-defeating scriptural scholarship, and the inevitable discovery of “the God Within”) and where, through the embrasure of so-called “prosperity gospels” catering to the worst instincts of a post-binge capitalist society, they have simply gone mad.

Douthat also lays a humbly offered groundwork for how and where the churches may yet recover their sense of both social place and mission. Not surprisingly, it will involve a confrontation with the self that will be as painful as any bacchanal’s bleary-eyed gaze into a well-lit morning mirror; groaning pleas for mercy will make a slow, careful nod toward justice.

Continue reading at www.firstthings.com
 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Bobseeks

    Ironic that a member of the oldest heresy, roman catholicism, is writing a book on heresy in America. If he is claiming that the papists are "orthodox", then he is a liar and one must be careful when reading what he writes.

    • daves

      "But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says ‘Fool’ WILL BE SENT to fiery hell."
      ~ Matthew 5:22

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      Bobbiesocks, if people can survive reading your absurdities, they will be able to handle whatever this guy writes about.

    • lurl

      Boobsucks…..get those blinders back on. You shouldn't read anything your keepers haven't told you to read.

  • evermyrtle

    Matthew 5: 22 But I say unto you, "that whosoever is angry with his brother "without a cause" shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother,, shall be in danger of hell fire. Raca, I believe means "fool"

    Why did you leave part of the verse out; because that changes the meaning from what you wrote. You might want to check our Revelation 22:18-19 and get some extra meaning, to this problem of adding or taking away from HIS WORD.

    • Steve03

      He left out "without cause" because most modern translations leave it out. It appears in the Textus Receptus on which the King James Bible is based, but not in the many older and better texts that have been found since the 1600s. Besides, take any doctrine of any church — from Biblical inerrancy to transsubstantiation to savation by faith to the Trinity — and you'll find that there's something that must be added (often an assumption about the nature of God borrowed from Greek philosophy or the majority vote of a council of bishops or theologians) and something must be taken away (words of Holy Scripture that say the opposite of what the doctrine holds) to "prove" the turth of the proposition. For example, most Christians hold that the three persons of the Trinity are co-equal, but Jesus himself says "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). So we either ignore Jesus' words or devise some logical argument by which we can demonstrate that what he meant was not what we read him to say.

      • daves

        I read recently that the first known text mentioning the trinity is from the 10th century.

        • Eric

          That's fascinating. I wonder then how the first seven ecumenical church councils–which were all about the Trinity in one way or another–ever got anything accomplished while they waited 600 years for the "first known text" to mention it. Could it be that what you "read recently" was wrong? Certainly not!

          • daves

            It certainly could be.

        • Steve03

          Actually, it's from the 2nd century — Theophilus of Antioch used the word "Trinity" to describe "God, his Word, and his Wisdom" in 170 or so. The word "trinity" appears nowhere in the New Testament itself, and there are very few passages that contain recognizable Trinitarian formulations. Paul even seems to get it "wrong" in 1st Corinithians, making the Son inferior to the Father (3:23, 4:6-8) and suggesting that the distinction between the Father and the Son is temporary (15:20-28). If penned by a later theologian, those passages would be heretical — subordinationism and modalism, respectively. The doctrines of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ as we have them weren't fully developed until the Council of Chalcedon (451), and the Arian Goths were still annoying their catholic bishops and emperor in Charlemagne's day.

          • msjallen

            Actually the Triune God or Trinity is well defined in scripture.
            God the Father: The Planner of all things John 10:30, Eph 1:3, 6, 12, Rom 1:3-6
            God the Son: Carries out God’s plan John 14:20, 17:2 & 23, Rom 8:10, II Cor 13:5, Gal 2:20, Col 1:27, I John 2:24
            God the Holy Spirit: basis for spirituality and spiritual growth: John 14:26 Rom 8:11, I Cor 3:16, I Cor 2:9-16, 6:19-20, II Cor 6:16, Eph 6:18
            And the verse in Genesis 1:26 "Let US make man in OUR image".

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Well, the only one of the three that man resembles is Jesus. So, that verse fails.

            God as a planner is absurd. Let’s take a look at gods track record. Creates Lucifer who rebels against him. Didn’t see that one coming. Creates Adam and Eve who disobey him. Didn’t see that one coming. Kills everyone to fix the problem except a righteous person but ends up with the exact same problems, Didn’t see that one coming. Sends Jesus to Earth to fix the problem and allows his son to get killed. He saw that one coming. Somehow this was his master plan all along. (Why he didn’t start off with the death of Jesus is anyone’s guess – That all knowing stuff is really hard) And he still ends up with the exact same issues and problems. Didn’t see that one coming either. Now, this perfect god somehow created imperfect laws that Jesus had to fix. (Are you sure he is all knowing?????) He really does not seem to have mastered that superpower yet! And since Jesus was involved with the creation, why didn’t he simply tell pops about all this at the beginning and avoid all the problems and bloodshed? Perhaps god enjoys a good massacre?

      • Evermyrtle

        Steve, thanks forthe explanation. I use the King James Version and use all that is in it, leaving nothing our nor adding anything. Occasionally if I think an explanation is needed i will add that, but make sure that, that is understood.

      • msjallen

        Steve03, when Jesus Christ said, Jesus himself says "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) was from His humanity in hyporstatic union, the God-man. The Doctrine of Kenosis explains this. Jesus gave up the independent use of His Divine attributes so that in this world He could become the savior. Jesus Christ did not sustain His own deity while here on earth – the Holy Spirit sustained Him and provisions from God the Father.

        • Steve03

          Thank you for proving my point. You've devised — or rather repeated what others devised long ago — a logical argument by which you can demonstrate that what Jesus meant was not what John saus he said. Jesus himself doesn't say a thing about Kenosis (that's Paul) or the hypostatic (no "r") union (hypostasis itself is Hebrews, as a theological concept, the word is borrowed from the Stoics, and the "hypostatic union" is council coined term).
          I don't disagree with any of those doctrines, although I don't think any rise to the level of articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae. I only say that the text itself doesn't say what we believe it to mean.

  • msjallen

    Sorry, I did spell "Hypostatic" wrong. Not everything Jesus Christ said was written and the Epistles explain a lot of things He taught His disciples including teaching Paul. I can say it another way. During the incarnation, Jesus Christ surrendered His Divine Attributes in compliance to the Father’s plan for the victory of the Angelic Conflict and He became the greater.
    Phil 2:7 if He deprived Himself of the proper function of Deity, taking the form of a bond-servant, when He had been born in the likeness of mankind. The perfect God became a servant so that we can have eternal life.
    Heb 1:3-4 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

    • Steve03

      I'm not arguing against any particular doctrine, only saying in response to Myrtle that you have to add something to the Bible (if only human reason) and take something away (by explaining away passages that read in their "literal and gammatical" sense undercut thepoint you wish to prove) to establish any given doctrine. I profess and affirm the Trinity as embodied in the three creeds evey bit as much as you do, but I also know we didn't get there by sola scriptura, at least as most Protestants now misdefine that doctrine. THe Fathers got to the Trinity by way of Holmes' "razor": "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
      Also note that Hebrew 1:3-4 could be used to support adoptionism as easily as orthodox Trinitarianism. And how do you square "Angelic conflict" with Isaiah 45:5-7?

  • msjallen

    I agree, no arguing, just adding info. I just think we speak a different language when we present information. Are you Catholic?
    I am not sure what you mean regarding the Angelic conflict with Isaiah 45:5-7.

    • Steve03

      Small c, like all true Christians! The Angelic conflict involves a contest among divine beings, but in Isaiah God says there are no others, just him. And that he does all that is done, whether good or evil. I am at least as uncomfortable with a God who "makes peace and creates evil" as I am with a Satan who can rival God and who controls the present world. Yet there's scripture to support both positions.

      • msjallen

        I believe in the triune God and Steve, I think we are splitting hairs here in regards to God and angels. The Angelic Conflict is explained with: Anthropopathism: feelings, thoughts of anger, hatred, scorn, benevolence, compassion, longsuffering and repentance. It ascribes to God human feelings which God does not have but in order to explain a Divine Policy, it is so used. Anthropomorphism – ascribing to God a part of the human anatomy that He does not possess but expresses a Divine attitude. Our finite mind cannot understand all about God and He teaches through His Word how He works with the human race and the Angelic Conflict is why He created man to prove to Satan He is fair. I don't beleive God created evil but gave the angels and man volition to make their own choice about Him. We are not God's puppets but we sure live a happier life if we follow His mandates.

    • lurl

      And you are what a baptist or anabaptist?