Impeach the Pope?

Don, would you please get your definitions right? I have been after you for quite some time over your constantly confusing the term "condescending" and "patronizing".

Don't patronize me! Unless, of course, I own a business, and I need you to be a patron. Then, please, patronize me!

I'm sure Plantinga is well aware of more formal definitions of the term, but he wasn't working towards a definition of the phenomenon. Plantinga's definition is more of a playful, definition of the term as commonly used by contemporary academics, not specifically engaged in sociological analysis of religion. He's not attempting a proper definition of the phenomenon, but rather the implied meaning in the mouths of the vast majority of those who use it. In this sense, I think he's right. It usually does have a sort of fuzziness to it that points to the indexical element which he speaks of, with disapprobation for views that are theologically to the right of the user. Honestly, most of the people who the term in these sorts of discussions aren't aware of the work by Marty and Appleby.

In any case, classic Fundamentalism had to do Specifically with the fundamentalist/modernist controversy in the early 1900s. A series of works were put out defending "fundamental" doctrines of historic Christianity, or at least protestantism, such as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, authority of scripture, etc. You were a fundamentalist if you held to these. Nothing more, nothing less. Since then the meaning of the term has morphed and, in my opinion, become functionally useless.

By the way, if you mean that Driscoll is a Fundamentalist in the classic sense, then I'm sure you're right. Any other sense, maybe. In any case, I wasn't saying he wasn't a fundamentalist. I was saying that he wasn't a member of the Religious Right. Although there is significant overlap, you can be one and not the other.

________________________________

No, no. That limbo thing is a different deal, and has a different history. I'm referring to what Catholic theologians have said of late.

Yes, I was referring to an argument that Benedict made when he was still Ratzinger. I'm not implying he still believes it.

Your right. I misspoke. It's the center of mass- what I meant was that American Catholics don't always like to see it as the center of theology, as you've expressed here.

Don't know what was written in the press in 2007, but yes, many Catholic theologians and laity have made that claim, that Protestants are not saved.

I liked what Jean Paul said, that Protestants are lost sheep who will one day return to the fold. (I'd like to think he included the Quakers too in that, if he even thought of us.)

Huh. I certainly don't believe that salvation comes through faith alone.

Catholic doctrine has certainly evolved. You should read the Early Church Fathers. Good reading. And personally I believe instructive to us all today, still. That of course, is originally an argument of the Roman Church.

My statements were about the present and the past. Again, as I said, you brought up the past with your quote about the past.

Right.

I cringe when I hear the way some kids talk back to their parents now. If I had spoken to mine that way, I would have gotten knocked upside the head!

George Marsden.

Right. Sorry about that.

________________________________

Did I really just read a blogger on God's Politics call Pope Benedict XVI "extremist," "obnoxious," "sexist," "racist," and "close-minded." Did she really compare him to the Taliban?

Did she really write that "the Catholic priests" have been guilty of heinous crimes? Not "some Catholic priests," much less "a tiny minority of Catholic priests," but "the Catholic priests?" Did I really read such a bigoted, hate-filled, and irrational column on God's Politics?

Julie Clawson looks young, very young, so perhaps one can forgive her for an intemperate, arrogant, and ,yes, deeply uncharitable rant. But there is no forgiving Jim Wallis and the editors of God's Politics for posting what wouldn't even be allowed on many explicitly anti-Catholic polemical sites. Well, this is one Catholic who won't be back here, and every time I read about Jim Wallis prattle about ecumenism and respectful dialogue, I'll remember this one.

Shame.

In fact, if you read again, you will find that she did no such thing -- she wasn't referring to any specific church or religion. She was complaining only that the extremists who have hijacked religion often find themselves.

I have been astonished to follow the intense outrage against the Pope for undoing an excommunication of the priest who denies the holocaust. (Though of course, he doesn't deny it, but rather thinks it was much smaller than it really was.) If the Pope was also denying the holocaust or it's numbers, that would be worth getting up in arms about. But what people are protesting is saying that this guy is no longer condemned to hell, by the church's standards. It doesn't matter if you're Jewish and you don't agree theologically with the concept of excommunication- what you're arguing against is that religious body's right to undo it, and say the guy's not going to hell for eternity. This would be heinous enough even if the guy had participated in the holocaust. Not because, perhaps, a participant didn't deserve to rot in hell for eternity. Rather, that's not our decision- that's God's- and those who most protest this decision by the Pope are the same people who think the concept of hell is unjust. But in this case, when we have someone who didn't participate but thinks it was smaller than it truly was, the call for him to remain in the damned category is all the more outrageous, and even, to be blunt, demonic.

Actually, since she's talking in the general sense about what we as Christians do when we "feel" our faith has been hijacked, rather than it actually being so, this piece can equally be read as a condemnation of those condemning the Pope. Or more likely, not a condemnation at all, but rather a general exploration of what one does when you feel that others are speaking for your faith that don't represent. As a Quaker, where the third smallest Quaker group is Universalist but also tends to get the most press and has the biggest voice, this article hits home indeed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/...

Before you spend any more time defending these people, you might want to refer to the link above. Personally, I find it easier to forgive someone who participated and is truly sorry than someone who denies that it ever happened.

And since when do evangelicals commune with humanists? Heck, in the 1980s in the evangelical community "humanism" was akin to atheism!

You know, I think this pope might besupreme after all.

I'm posting here because I don't want to scroll down, this is not actually replying to Mark.

I don't know what it is with liberals comparing anyone and everyone theologically/politically to the right of them with to the Taliban.

And what the heck does the new calvinism have to do with anything? How does Mark Driscoll fit in with Falwell? Falwell would've had a heart attack hearing Driscoll preach or going to his church. Driscoll doesn't get involved in politics except for maybe saying something about abortion, which is pretty tame, basic stuff for an evangelical. He's not part of the Religious Right or the Religious Left.

As for the use of the term "fundamentalist", philosopher Alvin Plantinga has a useful discussion worth quoting at length:

"I fully realize that the dreaded f-word will be trotted out to stigmatize any model of this kind. Before responding, however, we must first look into the use of this term 'fundamentalist'. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like 'son of a bitch', more exactly 'sonovabitch', or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) 'sumbitch.' When the term is used in this way, no definition, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you fell obligated first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of 'fundamentalist' (in this widely current use); it isn't simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like 'stupid sumbitch' (or maybe 'fascist sumbitch'?) than 'sumbitch' simpliciter. It isn't exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase 'considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.' The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like 'stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine.

It is therefore hard to take seriously the charge that the views I'm suggesting are fundamentalist; more exactly, it is hard to take it seriously as a charge. The alleged charge means only that these views are rather more conservative than those of the objector, together with the expression of a certain distaste for the views or those hold them. But how is that an objection to anything, and why should it warrant the contempt and contumely that goes with the term'" (Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 244-245).

Well, I think the use of the term "Fundamentalist" can easily be simply honoring people with the term they want to be called. I completely disagree with the Fundamentalists, but they prefer that term for themselves. Those that don't call themselves something different, like Evangelical, and they tend to think a bit differently than Fundamentalists as well.

I'm not sure how Mark Driscoll came into this conversation, but having been to his church, I'd say he quite definitely falls into the camp of the Religious Right.

Eh, I referenced the quote to simply point out the uselessness of the epithet "fundamentalist", in the context of one of these debates, except as a way of saying you don't like someone's beliefs, or that they're more conservative than you, which, doesn't really say anything about whether or not they're wrong. Sorry if it was kinda off.

The original term "fundamentalist" came from a series of works called "the Fundamentals" early on in the 20th century, referring to the "fundamentals of the faith." There were 5 or so main doctrines like the divinity of Jesus, authority of Scripture, virgin birth, resurrection, trinity, etc. (basically the contents of the creeds) which were being defended against the newly-rising theological modernism. The term originally simply meant someone who held to these views. It then morphed into a derogatory epithet somewhere in the range of what Dr. Plantinga explained above. (Sorry if this is review for you, I don't mean to be condescending.)

The term fundamentalist is now applied so imprecisely that it is attached to Muslims and people from other faiths who certainly wouldn't hold to those doctrines, as a way of describing them as overly-conservative, radical, etc. My point is that simply labeling someone as a fundamentalist in this sense, which is the sense that seems to be in use here, is just kind of ad hominemish and not helpful for furthering discussion. Evangelicals take that term because it is historically older and has been more useful until lately for avoiding the ideological baggage that has attached itself to "fundamentalist."

As for Driscoll, I would agree that he is Theologically to the right or conservative, but as for being part of the Religious Right, I think you're wrong. Driscoll doesn't attach himself to political campaigns, endorse candidates, come out for or against the War, etc. You won't see him at a Republican rally or at any of those kinds of events. His church took a lot of heat for declining to participate in a "defense of the family", anti-gay marriage events or something like that a while back.

Oh- I get the Mark part now. Didn't see the reference in the original article till just now.

I guess I don't link the Religious Right to only political campaigns. But I have heard many really anti-gay comments from Mark (and not just against their actions, but real homophobia).

Yes, we agree on the history of Fundamentalism. I'm actually reading a rather interesting books at the moment, Saving Darwin, where he points out that the majority of the articles on origins submitted to the seminar on the Fundamentals of Faith were pro-evolution. And I agree, the term has morphed. It was initially a response to historical criticism, and asking what are the inherent fundamentals of our faith, that we *must* have, leaving aside all others. I think most self-proclaimed Fundamentalists today would not recognize such ideals, as there appears to be an over-reaching to declare an answer on everything and say you must believe everything to truly be a Christian, within their faith. But in it's original form, I might very well have been a Fundamentalist, in 1910.

I agree, the term is imprecise, as is the term Evangelical. I'm not even sure what the latter is anymore, except I don't think I am one. (I prefer Campolo's Red Letter Christian.) And I agree, it's totally inappropriate to apply it to Muslims. But I say that because the term has a place within the Christian religious tradition, and in Western culture, and it's anachronistic to apply it to Muslims. Islam is an inherently fundamentalistic faith. If you aren't fundamentalist- pursuing the fundamentals - you aren't a Muslim. Better to use terms like "Islamist", as Islamicists tend to do.

No. I agree, the term homophobic gets thrown around way too much. Just because you believe that homosexuality is wrong does not at all make you homophobic. Rather, I think it is a fear of homosexuality to such an extent that you can't accept brotherly love between men, or you find anything feminine in men to be distasteful or even sinful. I saw the former in an otherwise excellent new series the other night, Kings, based on the life of David and Saul, but in modern times. They had to make Jonathan gay though, hearkening back to that oft repeated idea from the gay community that David and Jonathan were gay. This to me is homophobia- not being able to accept a friendship and having to interpret it as gay. It has lead to the sad decline in friendship between men, and touching between men, that is purely platonic expressions of love.

I wouldn't even say "gays are going to hell" would be homophobic, per se. I would say it asserts too much that you can't know. I think "it's gay" is a way of insulting people, and not appropriate, though I don't know if I'd call even that homophobic. I would say though that insulting your parishoners if they are too effeminite, of talking about the need to be manly, of insulting gays from the pulpit or in writing- these are all homophobic acts, that Mark has publicly committed.

Well done. Continue to pull it out!

Well, now that I think about it, maybe it would have been better to describe the Clawsons as co-pastors.

See, here's the thing. I get your joke; I have a sense of humor and all that noise.

But there is a movement, in earnest, that would criminalize spanking children. Literally make the act a prosecutable offense. Julie supports that movement, on the basis that some parents are physically abusive to the point of murdering their children. You can Google her arguments on this issue if you wish. Since you are a reasonable person, you will probably agree that they are, well, unpersuasive.

But that's not my point. My point is that many Christians, including myself, see a biblical command to physically discipline children. Most Americans find those who wish to ban spanking to be hysterical ninnies.

But if the majority wants to advocate for the cause, we are the butt of jokes. We become the ones unduly obsessed with something that has, absurdly, taken on sexual connotations. This is, potentially, a very powerful political tool for those who literally wish to ban spanking, as they are able to cast their opponents as possessing a prurient interest in the issue.