Confession: 'Radicalism Often Turns People into Jerks Rather than Lovers'

We might be able to avoid these pitfalls if we first understood the ultimate aim of the Gospel as reconcilation; it's so easy to focus on whatever we believe is "right" that we forget the long-term goal. The Pharisees demonstrate that you can have you theological p's and q's minded and miss God entirely, and the secularization of the civil-rights movement is a sign that He can remove His hand if we get off-track.

If you are spot on in your assessment, then you are not like the Pharisees. If you read the Gospel texts, they were more than just curmudgeonly jerks. They hypocritically flaunted God's commands.

If what you believe causes you to abandon humility, then you should evaluate what you believe.

If you are spot on in your assessment, then you are not like the Pharisees. If you read the Gospel texts, they were more than just curmudgeonly jerks. They hypocritically flaunted God's commands.

Not necessarily -- in fact, people of that day looked up to the Pharisees (while secretly resenting them) because they wore their religion for all to see. Besides, Paul was a Pharisee, and he'd be the first to tell you that he kept the law perfectly as far as those traditions went. His problem was that he missed the context.

This character defect of being a "prophetic jerk" is not limited ideologically. I have endured patronizing rants from anti-abortion activists and King James Only believes as well as from Obama supporters, antiwar folks, advocates for the poor and those concerned about global warming. I sometimes wonder if this universal character flaw is pride rooted in a kind of gnosticism: I am better than you because I am more "enligthened" than you on abortion, poverty, war, KJV Bible reading, etc.

"I sometimes wonder if this universal character flaw is pride rooted in a kind of gnosticism:"

I think this gets at the core issue. If you are truly offering prophetic witness, then there is nothing wrong with being judgmental. The problem comes when people confuse espousing opinions for prophecy.

If you are a prophet, then you cannot be wrong, by definition. Therefore, nobody who disagrees with you can be right. That why the broad application of prophecy simply doesn't work, in my view. If you are proven wrong, then you become a false prophet.

Thing is, he had approval from the authorities to persecute Christians --after all, they were a threat to the "truth." And in fact he was able to do so legally. (He actually was credited was never credited with any murders; he simply approved of Stephen's.)

Pretty sure approving of murder is also a sin. He refers to himself as a murderer.

Irrelevant, as you are wont to say. A sin is a sin whether you acknowledge it after the fact or before.

Paul was not a follower of God's will who just happened to be a major jerk about it. He zealously persecuted God and enjoyed admiration for his sin, just like the Pharisees. That was my point.

From Philippians 3:5 and 6:

"[C]ircumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of
Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal,
persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless." In other
words, believing he was doing God's will he felt he was doing God a
favor by trying to destroy the early church because he saw his purpose as
maintaining purity in Judaism. He wasn't so much a radical but a reactionary
-- similar to a number of folks who can't handle truth, so they try to
discount it.

But as I said, the Pharisees craved recognition for their "religiosity" and
were willing to split the community for that purpose. It's easy to see the
Pharisees' sin in hindsight, and Paul admitted his blindness in numerous
places -- and that's really Becky's point. In other words, it's not a matter
of what but why.

And your argument has little to do with the topic.

Umm--why not?

This was, really, only a monologue that I intruded on.

In the quote to my original article, I use the word "pseudo-alterity". Alterity is the quality of being an "other." Pseudo alterity is what happens when someone tries to "other" themselves in a way that isn't real. It is what happens when someone claims the status of "other" for one's self as they, for example, attempt to achieve solidarity with a marginalized group in a way that is superficial or trite or inauthentic.

Another way that pseudo alterity happens is when someone considers themselves to be "othered" by the dominant group when, in reality, they are still members of the dominant group. This happens all the time among radicals who flee their middle class existence by donning the garb of radicalism and then quickly turn around to castigate the middle class. They are claiming for themselves some sort of new marginal identity when, in reality, they are still middle class.

If you want to read more about that, go here: http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2008/08/the-style...

Wow, the comments are getting tiny.

Even smaller now...

The term "false martyrdom" overlaps, but doesn't completely mean the same thing. The trend of coining new terms isn't just a Christian trend. It is a modern trend. And "framing narrative" means more than context. The issue isn't just a love of new words; an increasing complexity of shifting contexts, colliding systems of belief and thought, and a growing diversity of approaches to issues from a growing number of different disciplines (all seeking ways of being interdisciplinary) foster the coining of new phrases.

If you are spot on in your assessment, then you are not like the Pharisees. If you read the Gospel texts, they were more than just curmudgeonly jerks. They hypocritically flaunted God's commands.

If what you believe causes you to abandon humility, then you should evaluate what you believe.

If you are spot on in your assessment, then you are not like the Pharisees. If you read the Gospel texts, they were more than just curmudgeonly jerks. They hypocritically flaunted God's commands.

Not necessarily -- in fact, people of that day looked up to the Pharisees (while secretly resenting them) because they wore their religion for all to see. Besides, Paul was a Pharisee, and he'd be the first to tell you that he kept the law perfectly as far as those traditions went. His problem was that he missed the context.

This character defect of being a "prophetic jerk" is not limited ideologically. I have endured patronizing rants from anti-abortion activists and King James Only believes as well as from Obama supporters, antiwar folks, advocates for the poor and those concerned about global warming. I sometimes wonder if this universal character flaw is pride rooted in a kind of gnosticism: I am better than you because I am more "enligthened" than you on abortion, poverty, war, KJV Bible reading, etc.

When providing a link, unless it was requested, you should usually include a key excerpt. Since you have not, I will do so.

"Tell a parent that the McDonald's toy they gave to their child was made be other children in brutal working conditions and what will that parent say to you? Probably something like this: 'Hey, what are you, some kind of jerk?' Tell a friend that the blood of children is staining their favourite sneakers or brand of clothes, and you'll probably get the same reaction."

That probably depends on how willing said parent or friend is to tangle with you. If I were accosted by this fellow for buying a toy, I would take the time to ask if every single item they owned was certifiably blood-free. I would also ask if his desire to stem the tide of bloody children extended to protections for the unborn.

If the answer to either question were no, I would castigate him for his hypocrisy. If the answer were yes, I would probably give him a listen. As the conversation progressed, I'm pretty sure I'd be compelled to ask a blogger (by definition, someone with internet access) how he could use that blog to rail against those who benefit from elite structures.

But most people aren't like me, and would therefore dismiss him as a jerk, or maybe tell him to shave.

If you are a prophet, then you cannot be wrong, by definition.

Then Jonah was a false prophet.

Anyway, that comment shows a misunderstanding of the concept of prophecy -- it's not about foretelling the future; most of the time it's "Unless this changes, this will happen" and thus should be delivered only in an attitude of humility. The true prophet's message is "I hope I'm wrong -- but I don't think I am." Besides, true prophets are few and far between and people often regard them as crazy, or worse. (Until decades later, when time shows that they were right.)

This, however, was after the fact.

Off topic, but we already have terms (e.g. false martyrdom) to describe this phenomenon. Why did you coin a different, more awkward term? I ask because this seems to be a trend in Christianity. "Framing narrative", meaning simply context, is my favorite.

That's great, but has nothing to do with what I am arguing.