Gene Veith at Cranach had an interesting post yesterday on whether the Christian virtues can survive without Christianity. I think this ties in well to mine on NEO today on the immorality of Christian clergy supporting BLM, instead of continuing our own mission, the most successful in helping the disadvantaged in history, by far. Here’s part of Gene’s article.
The secular British historian Tom Holland has published a new book entitled Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World (Basic Books). Here is the summary from Amazon.com:
Crucifixion, the Romans believed, was the worst fate imaginable, a punishment reserved for slaves. How astonishing it was, then, that people should have come to believe that one particular victim of crucifixion-an obscure provincial by the name of Jesus-was to be worshipped as a god. Dominion explores the implications of this shocking conviction as they have reverberated throughout history. Today, the West remains utterly saturated by Christian assumptions. As Tom Holland demonstrates, our morals and ethics are not universal but are instead the fruits of a very distinctive civilization. Concepts such as secularism, liberalism, science, and homosexuality are deeply rooted in a Christian seedbed. From Babylon to the Beatles, Saint Michael to #MeToo, Dominion tells the story of how Christianity transformed the modern world.His book shows just how different Christian values and ethics were from those of the Greeks and the Romans and how the Christian mindset has prevailed in Western Civilization even among his fellow secularists. (Holland is an atheist.) The Greeks, for example, considered compassion, for example to be a weakness, not one of the highest virtues as Christianity made it. The principle from Christianity that all human beings have equal value was incomprehensible to the hierarchies of ancient Rome. Today we assume that peace is better than war, a legacy of Christianity utterly foreign to the ancient Greeks, Romans, and European tribes.
It’s something that is easy to forget, and mostly we have.
Holland appears to think that it’s possible to have the fruits without the faith, to have Christian influence without the Christianity. Strand, however, disagrees:Christian ethics cannot be about merely upholding and claiming certain values that flow from the Christian faith. That would be to mistake the fruit from the tree. The very center of the Christian life is not what the cross teaches us morally but what the cross did for us in atoning for our sins and bringing us from life to death in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The transformation of the person from death to life and the ultimate union with the Triune God in the City of God is the goal of all Christians. Their works of mercy and sacrifice for neighbor and their culture-building over millennia are a testament of this transforming power. We make a mistake if we think the fruit is the goal or that we can separate the fruit from the tree that produced it.I would say that although principles such as love, equality, compassion and the like are still dominant, even among the secularists, they are starting to fade. Certainly those who no longer believe in the key Christian teachings of atonement and redemption will have difficulty with the concept of forgiveness, and we are seeing that. Secularists today say they believe in equality, but they are also demonizing and deriding the worth of those with whom they disagree. And the strange embrace of abortion on the part of so many secularists, even liberals and progressives, undercuts their claim to be compassionate and supportive of the powerless. It is, in fact, a reversion to the Greco-Roman practice of infanticide, with everything else that implied about the value of human life.
I should at this point go on and add examples of my own, but two things, I think this is perfectly lucid, clear, and self-evidently correct. Our morality will never stand on its own, its foundation is in our hope of redemption, not in earthly values. To claim otherwise is sophistry and sophistry which history has shown to be false. Without the hope of redemption, we return to the dog eat dog world of Greece and Rome, where the only reason for doing anything is self-aggrandizement. We see that happening already in our so-called elites, who are mostly post-Christian, for not believing in God, they seem to only believe in earthly acquisition and what may be even worse, they seem to think this is a zero-sum game.
Well, Christ taught us better, as they will find out one day. After all, the Lord did say, “Vengeance is mine”. And as I’ve said a few times, without hell there can be no heaven.
Pingback: Churches Supporting BLM Have Lost Their Mission | nebraskaenergyobserver
NEO – may I be critical here?
This all depends on context. The function of proclaiming The Word is to convict people of their sins so that they trust in Christ for their salvation; in the crucifixion they see the punishment for their own sin and in the resurrection they see their own salvation.
OK – so much of this depends on whom the clergy that you are talking about is addressing. If they’re addressing a bunch of BLM people, who are convinced that they are the poor innocent victims of oppression, that all their sins are a result of the systemic evil inflicted upon them by the evil white oppressors, then yes – you’re absolutely right. Such a message has nothing whatsoever to do with the Christian message and it doesn’t correspond to Christianity.
I have strong reservations about BLM, because it seems to me that what might arguably be a good cause has been taken over by the worst of headbangers, who now seem, to a very large extent to represent something very ugly. (See the article that Scoop linked to in the last post – a letter written by a black professor from Berkeley, who is strongly opposed to BLM).
But even if the BLM leaders are a bunch of thugs and headbangers, don’t you think that there might be just a teensy weensy element of discrimination?
So it all depends on what the clergy are saying. If it is uncritical blanket support of BLM, then yes – you are correct – this is evil. If it is nuanced, then they may have a point.
LikeLike
Sure, Jock, there is that. But it’s a blog post, not a book. Some generalizing is in order, or nothing gets written. And the Word is the Word, in all times and without reception, nothing not in compliance with it should be praised by clergy, or Christians, generally
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would say support the slogan but not the organization. All good ideas that turn into institutions become corrupt.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jim – yes – I’d say that this is exactly right.
I think one has to be extremely myopic not to see that the BLM slogan is a response to a very serious issue.
But the organisation does seem to have been taken over by something very corrupt. Right now, I don’t like what I’ve heard of Seattle.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think seattle is a small enough sampling to just let it play out as a social experiment. I hope people are watching for the right reasons.
LikeLike
This rather longish piece was used by Limbaugh yesterday on his radio program and is worth the time to read. The insanity continues daily and we find ourselves tearing ourselves apart into cultural groups rather than identifying simply as Americans; not German-Americans, Italian-Americans, Afro-Americans et al.
Worth the time to read: https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/patriotism-vs-multiculturalism/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Claremont is always worth the time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop – you know, you really need Her Majesty the Queen to unite you guys. You made a big mistake when you got your independence – which all started when you showed that you didn’t even know how to make a decent cup of tea.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even the queen cannot end the worldwide movement of multiculturalism or identity politics. That is the operative storm of divisiveness and the devolving of our present American Culture and I suspect throughout all of Europe. Without the basic principles (Judeo-Christian ethos) uniting people of divergent races and religions the basics must be preserved. We are losing that foundation and now it is a hierarchy of multi-cultures who claim victimhood and order them as to who is the greatest victim; there can be no end to that path to destruction. God can save the Queen but she cannot save you or us. For God must save the UK and US as well.
LikeLike
Scoop – just have patience. There is revival just around the corner. The anger that you see directed against Christians is highly reminiscent of the apostle Paul before his conversion on the Road to Damascus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it is more reminiscent of the ‘great restrainer and restraining’ which steps aside to allow the antichrist to emerge so that Christ may once again return. This entire audio which I will give you is quite long so if you don’t have time to listen to all of it, listen to the last half hour or so.
https://s162.podbean.com/pb/b768af8963fe285fe3ff2d831000f4a1/5ef4dd0d/data4/fs94/1742339/uploads/Barnhardt-Podcast-115-2020-06-24.mp3?pbss=25282f9d-9e39-5fc7-a95e-3d444f3e6ebe
It is hope that we must embrace in our times and fight the urge to flee for the wolves. They are all around at this moment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
… by the way, I remember Stanley Baxter, back in the 1980’s talking about the subject of multiculturalism in Glasgow, and the cries of `Allah’ that could be heard all over the place – as in `Allahwafurapint’
LikeLiked by 1 person
God waiting or waiting for God? Makes sense though the Muslims may not like what they find out.
LikeLike
I stated in a blog post of my own a few weeks ago how there cannot be a moral atheist if the nature of being an atheist necessitates the carrying of no dogma. If there is no moral dogma, there cannot be a moral atheist.
The article though wasn’t even a large critique of atheism in particular but specifically the current strain of atheism we see today. Only with a foundation can we have morals. That rock is Christ.
LikeLike
On the BLM business, it’s interesting that it all blew up in Minneapolis of all places. This, as I understand it, is a place where the Democrat party used to be called the `Workers and Farmers Democratic Party’ with all that this implies.
By the way, do any of you know what is going on in Seattle? There seemed to be something in Svenska Dagbladet saying that BLM was causing absolute mayhem there – and even trying to start a civil war, but it was behind a paywall (and I’m not prepared to pay for SvD). Anyway, something from an American source would be more reliable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You cannot understand any of this without proper anthropological theology and a Gospel focused view. BLM and their allies are the enemies of the Gospel and the enemies of Christ. They elevate some men to the point they can be whatever they claim and they degrade other men to the stature of permanent sinners. This is what’s at stake. Justice becomes a matter of power. That is what they seek. It is not a Gospel of Christ which is reconciliation but a Gospel of anger and power and dominance.
LikeLike
It blew up in Minneapolis for the same reason the city has become known as Little Mogadishu, too many do-gooders trying to make a half million Somalis into Americans overnight. It’s still the Democratic Farmer Labor Party as it has been forever, it used to be a fairly sensible party, but those days are over, Corbyn would be an improvement.
They’ve got themselves an enclave (about six blocks square), the governor and mayor, both leftist, can’t figure out what to do, so now they have a warlord (literally) whose people are carrying around AKs, a few killed, more beaten and some rapes, nobody really knows how many, since neither the police nor the fire department can go there. It’s a heckuva mess, by all reports, some are saying the damage is over a billion dollars already. Sooner or later somebody is going to have to flat invade, I guess, with all that entails, but nobody really wants to, which is understandable. Searching CHOP or Chaz should find you more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh well – I suppose this shouldn’t be so surprising then. It was the Swedes / Norwegians / Finns who settled in Minneapolis and – from what you say – it looks as if they have lifted the Swedish Social Democrat party and taken it with them. Politically, what you describe is exactly the same as Sweden.
Yeah – the BLM people are protesting against violence and injustice – and they do this by extreme violence and by raping people who never did them any harm …..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pretty much, I fear.
LikeLike
“To continuously evaluate whether a being is good requires moral judgment, which requires moral autonomy. Therefore it is not possible to continuously evaluate if a being (or morality) is good while also worshipping it. Therefore, worshipping necessarily requires abandoning one’s moral responsibility, which is immoral”—James Rachel on moral autonomy
When you agree to allow another to dictate your dogma or morality, anything can and does happen, as we’ve seen through history when good men do evil—those that are supposed to know better but lost personal discernment.
If you’ve allowed a book to dictate or guide your moral compass? Any mom and pop can so better on their own.
LikeLike
Jim – OK – I’ll bite on this one.
Firstly – I’d say that the `moral compass’ found in `the book’ (presumably you mean `The Bible’) is pretty much self evident. I don’t think Christianity is about allowing a book to dictate one’s moral compass – you don’t really need `the ten commandments’ to know that gratuitously killing someone is just not on.
So I’d say you have it diametrically wrong – people read `the book’ because they see that it is in line with their moral compass (and they agree with it on points such as `do not kill’) – and not the other way round.
I’d also say that people who worship God have (or at least should have) already evaluated that God is `good’ before they start worshipping God – so I think you have this the wrong way round too.
You’re absolutely right that when one agrees to allow another to dictate ones dogma or morality, this is the starting point for very great evil, but I don’t see this in Christianity – at least as I understand it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know it seems like you’re using your own mind, while you’re in it, but when you don’t believe it any longer you realize how incredibly taken you were by the whole process. Everybody makes the wisest choices from a selection of four or five dogmas. It’s incredible really how few have their own doctrine.
LikeLike
jim – This depends on what a person was `in’ and how they got into it. As far as I’m concerned, Christianity is fine, but churches can be very dangerous – there’s always somebody trying to get their hook into you.
But I’d need something more specific to continue a discussion. What do you mean by dogmas? and what sort of doctrine are you thinking of?
LikeLike
Well the most damaging doctrine of all would be the appeal to faith. Now the measure of virtue is how intently one has belief without evidence, and as we see, the less evidence the better, stronger faith. It is belief that has the world at odds with each other.
The bible plays a neat trick, by stating the natural man is an enemy to god. The natural man is actually the believer. Everyone is compelled to pick a belief and choose sides. Ask any random person, “what are your beliefs” and they’ll have them very handy, and they’ll even fight over them.Mere word convictions of an idea that you’ve chosen to cling to.
If i were a guru to challenge my students, to place a barrier in front of them that they shall not pass initiation until they solve the conundrum, I would use faith as that barrier.
And faith as described by scripture. Because real faith, the faith of an atheist, is total trust in letting go. But you all still cling to the messenger and paste his picture and cross (idols) all over the world. One cannot cling and have faith, but christianity is clinging to a moment in the past without ever meeting a single objective. That is the product of faith.
Belief also hardwires the neurons and makes handwaving facts a breeze. Now I am arguing facts against a persons physiology—the problem is physical. However, it does have its benefits, if you’re interested. But its probably not what you think.
LikeLike
Jim – well, I don’t know of any `appeal to faith’ and I do think you have things diametrically wrong as far as basic Christianity is concerned.
Firstly (your last mail) the `moral compass’ is not something written in a book; it is something that is already there hidden deep within us (do not kill, treat your neighbours nicely, as you would have them treat you, etc ….). Our faith is our response to the fact, which becomes painfully clear to us, that we cannot live up to the ideal of this moral compass, even though we would very much like to.
Yes, Christianity does cling to one moment in the past, the lowest moment in the past, `crucified under Pontius Pilate’. The next sentence may sound a bit pompous, but it is standard Christianity. I recognise that my failure to live up to that moral compass within me, which is an integral part of me, deserves that crucifixion – which Christ took on my behalf. My faith is my belief that Christ’s resurrection shows that my sin (transgression from the direction given by this `moral compass’ has been dealt with in him.
So when you talk about `virtue’ – well, you aren’t really talking about the Christian faith; a Christian does not believe that he has any `virtue’; that is why the crucifixion was necessary.
I think we’ve all seen the down-side of religion and faith in general and we’ve all seen what can go horribly wrong.
(Aside – Right now, I’m particularly worried about what is going on in Palestine and how myopic `Christians’ seem to be supporting the wrong side – not for any good moral reasons, but because they seem to think that their `book’ foretells some sort of national salvation for the State of Israel and they’re prepared to overlook absolutely any atrocity in order to bring this about).
But I don’t think that your starting point with atheism is any better. Your starting point sounds as if it has strong similarities to Immauel Kant. Towards the end, he introduced his doctrine of radical evil as the only solution – which he then had to recant, because he saw how dangerously close to Christianity this was (and he couldn’t have that, could he?).
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is remarkable how you struggle understand anything at all outside your beliefs. It’s incredibly common though. “ – well, I don’t know of any `appeal to faith. Really? Surely you’re kidding here.
“ By having faith in Jesus, Christians believe they receive God’s grace . This means they believe God has blessed them, which in turn gives them the strength to live a good Christian life. Ultimately, salvation from sin was the purpose of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection.”
Or, “ When the Philippian jailer asked Paul, “What must I do to be saved?” Paul responded, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”? Does any of this ring a bell? Is this not unique to christianity? Belief as a vehicle, not of works lest any man should boast? Im beginning to think you are a true believer, for you’re acting like a christian but have no clue what that means. Sorry, but this free gift through faith has come at a pretty steep price. If this doesn’t prove James Rachels quote is spot on?
We certainly can and do live the ideal without faith we live the moral compass every day, because christians either don’t know what they believe, or they are pretending to believe to appease done debilitating doctrine that man is nothing. Ethics will always surpass the outcome faith (pretending) while the neurons are fixed through submission and repetition.
LikeLike
Jim – I don’t see any `appeal to faith’ in what you write. Faith is something I have whether I like it or not and I don’t appeal to it.
The first quote – I don’t know where you got it from, but I’d more or less agree with that (I don’t see anyone appealing to their faith there).
Philippian jailer – well, he asked a straight question and got a straight answer. This *is* an example of someone who has a basic moral compass within him, understands that he has fallen well short of it – in short, someone who is already convinced of their own sin.
And yes – there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent of the `once for all’ event, `crucified under Pontius Pilate’ whereby we believe that in his resurrection we see that our own sin has been dealt with. I don’t see that in any other religion. They may have mythical events of a similar nature, which may be recurrent, but in its essence, you’re right; there isn’t anything equivalent in other religions.
I now think I begin to understand what you mean by `appeal to faith’ – although I wouldn’t have put it that way myself – and it does misrepresent what is going on. Also, I don’t see where the James Rachel quote comes into this – for reasons I already gave.
The whole problem is that we do not live the moral compass every day; we fail to live the moral compass every day. If you don’t see this, then (of course) you won’t see any point in Christianity and – sure – you’ll see it as damaging.
As for me – the `man is nothing’ (not how I would have put it – but let’s use your way of putting it) is simply a realistic assessment of myself – and I have no reason to suppose that it is any less true of anyone else. If this isn’t your own experience, then (of course) I’m not surprised that you have no place for Christianity and that you find it an irritation pure and simple.
You’re right that the `gift’ comes at a pretty high price – `crucified under Pontius Pilate’.
LikeLike
Im curious when you close your eyes and think of god, what do you see? What is the imagery behind your belief?
LikeLike
Good question, but (unfortunately) I don’t have a good answer – actually, I don’t see very much. I don’t seem to have imagery behind my belief.
LikeLike
So your immune to the idolatries of christianity? You don’t see very much, which implies a little something there. What is that? Can we be completely honest here?
LikeLike
Jim – be more explicit about what you mean by the idolatries of Christianity.
Actually – no I don’t see anything at all when I close my eyes to pray – other than the usual patterns of light that are left on the retina when one closes one’s eyes. They don’t signify anything. I don’t have any images there.
I don’t use images in any part of my religion; they aren’t useful for me.
It looks like a strange question. Why do you ask?
LikeLike