By Morris Dean
In a comment on May 21's column ("What's nihilistic about nihilism?"), I used the English word "apology" for the Latin "apologia" – a formal defense of one’s opinion – meaning it as a joke. It appears that my muse may have had something else in mind that I wasn't picking up on at the time.
She seems to have been thinking that Christian apologies are needed more than Christian apologias. Or fewer Christian apologists and more Christian apologizers?
A case in point caught my attention in the Lowe's Hardware parking lot the other day – a license plate sporting "John 3:16." Pretty much all of us know what that refers to: Chapter 3, Verse 16, of The Gospel According to John, and many of us can quote it. I grew up on the King James Version:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God so loved suffering and strife, he set up the food chain on Earth that he might watch its creatures devour one another.We are given apologias by Christians who believe John 3:16; now how about some apologies for the actual situation observable on the planet?
| Copyright © 2015 by Morris Dean |
The Situation is pretty grim !
ReplyDeleteThank you, Dawn. And the Christian worldview has it that God created this in His benevolence.
DeleteAlexander Pope must have had you in mind: "A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring".
ReplyDeleteI think John Lennox's "Seven Days that Divide the World" might be a good read to help you with that question, Morris. It's quite a resource on interpreting the first few chapters of Genesis in which I think your question is rooted.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, the original text doesn't state the food chain worked the same way in the beginning as it does today.
Kyle, I appreciate your comment and it relates partly to my point in my comment above. From a Judeo-Christian standpoint, in which John 3:16 is rooted, the current food chain is a result of the Fall, which renders the post nonsensical.
Delete"The current food chain is a result of the Fall." Wow, there's a doozy of a theological half-gainer, as Christopher Buckley might label it ["More theological loopholes (or half-gainers)," July 22, 2009]
DeleteAgain, your comment here is in keeping with the quote from Alexander Pope from An Essay on Criticism that I referenced in my first comment. In more modern vernacular, you are beyond your depth. Again, you started with a perversion of John 3:16. Yet the very character and attributes of the actual God of the Bible negate the doctrine and the ostensible prescription of reality you espouse in your rendition of the verse. I only mentioned my comment about the Fall and the food chain because Kyle's comment regarding such was in the right direction.
DeleteThe Biblical reality, ergo the orthodox Christian position regarding the Fall of Man (and Woman) is that the Fall has affected everything. Nothing has escaped its effects. Regardless of a young Earth or old Earth perspective on the early chapters of Genesis, the Fall has had influence on any and everything that intersects with Man's (and Woman's) existence, including the use of resources on this planet and its direct connection to how the food chain has been manifested over time. Basic Christian doctrine underscores that all of creation (not just human beings) has been negatively influenced by the Fall. No wonder creation longs for freedom and recalibration at the ultimate redemption of all of God's people (Rom 8: 16-23). A redemption that is open to you I might add. If it has been given to me, a wretch if there ever was one, you certainly can partake as well.
Patrick, I acknowledge your self-characterization as a wretch, although I admit it doesn't inspire any sympathy in me. And it is unclear whether your use of a fantastical belief system to justify yourself is a good thing. Maybe good for yourself in some sense, but hardly useful for anyone you inflict it on.
ReplyDeleteMorris, well it is hard to compete with that type of response. I don't feel that type of personal angst towards you. I certainly wasn't looking for any sympathy. Was just being honest about myself to underscore my comments were not coming from any self-righteous standpoint. And my belief system is merely what would be defined as orthodox Christian belief which has nothing to do with justifying oneself, the opposite actually, and has been held by billions throughout time. And I'm certainly not inflicting anything on you. You have a public blog that invites engagement and I have merely intersected with a post that was aggressive in its affront and challenge to a sacred Christian text, a text that is deeply profound in its inclusiveness and the peace and power it offers to a hurting world.
ReplyDeleteMorris, no one, not yourself, not anyone on the planet is outside of a belief system. No one, including yourself, is outside of ideology. The only question(s) is which belief system and ideology best approximates truth and reality, which holds up better under serious scrutiny. I teach public speaking and debate at a state university. I tell my students all the time that they must first understand thoroughly the ideas they hope to attack and dismantle, lest they be ineffective with those whose approach is to think critically. I respectfully suggest you do the same.
I'm really sorry we got off on the wrong foot, Patrick. Your opening insult must not have been a personal attack, but just your "being honest."
DeleteThe challenge that I intended to Christians was simply to hint at grim realities that the Bible papers over. I labeled the verse from "Jonathan" as I did because of the license plate that inspired the idea. I don't claim any one-to-one correspondence between Bible verses and particular grim realities.
I of course don't expect any Christian apologies. But being presented loopholes (like Time-1 and Time-2 – before and after The Fall) I do expect.
I assume that you are an accomplished and effective teacher of public speaking and debate. I admire your aggressive skill, even as I am unwilling to try to engage it, or your "honesty."
Patrick, I of course take exception with your unfriendly statement that I am "beyond my depth." You don't know how deep my experience with and understanding of Christianity is. You don't know that I was a practicing Christian for many years, studied philosophy and religion in college, attended some divinity school (50 years ago), have read fairly widely in the subject, wrestled (and prayed) over my faith.
ReplyDeleteI am quite well enough versed to criticize Christianity, as well as to appreciate what's good about it.
So maybe I don't intimately understand the theology of The Fall. I don't have to, having understood enough to understand that theology is a game – a rather easy one to play given that there's no subject matter.
Sure, the Bible is sacred...to certain people. So is the Qur'an – is it sacred do you?
And what is "orthodox Christian belief," to which you seem to assign such cachet? Do you not understand that "orthodox" simply means the beliefs whose adherents won out over their opponents, often by means of force, including burning at the stake? The extent to which the winning beliefs "approximated truth and reality" was hardly the point.
Not all ideologies are alike. The degree to which they comprise myth versus scientifically verifiable fact, for example, gives them distinctive "signatures." Christianity's "ideology" is heavily invested in the former.
In reflecting on my statement of "unwillingness to engage you in debate," I remembered Socrates's opinion of the Sophists, whose profession largely consisted in teaching young men the arts of debate, especially in courts of law. Socrates commented that their speciality was making the poorer argument seem the better.
I have never enjoyed the adversarial nature of debate, which typically does nothing to further understanding or change minds. A debate is primarily a contest to determine a winner. This is quite clear in the classroom, where the student is told which side of a question to argue for, whether he or she thinks it's the "correct" side or not.
I only regret that I let your opening personal affront ruffle my feathers. Not very hospitable of me. I need to do a better job welcoming people. It's possible that you reminded me of someone I came to dislike intensely because of his habit of instantly trying to put me on the defensive and then continuing to attack, attack, attack. I finally came to just ignoring him entirely. I probably should have ignored you too. That would have taken a lot less of both of our times.
Morris,
ReplyDeleteI was content to let your comment prior to this one end the discussion. But given the level of anger/frustration you've shown in this comment towards me personally, you've succeeded in drawing me back in.
First, I was actually already aware of most of the background information you shared about yourself in your latest comment. Moreover, that information in and of itself does not automatically negate that you could be out of your depth in reference to what you said in the original post. Secondly, I am well aware of the type of philosophical standpoints you espouse. A) they are not novel and B) I read your blog. Third, you greatly mischaracterize me and my approach to you in my comments. I actually have been far from aggressive and have attempted to soften my responses in the face of your angst towards me in order for us to not merely descend into being pejorative. Fourth, you have said several things in your last comment here regarding Christianity that reflect a serious misunderstanding of the Christian faith. I would like to discuss them. I think we could have a good discussion regarding the ontological and epistemological implications that flow from the formation and presence of ideology in the human condition.
Given what you have said here it appears you took my initial comment as an ad hominem attack. Upon reflection, I can see how you may feel that way. I sincerely apologize for that. It was not my intention to offer a "personal" attack. I just thought the post was exceedingly flawed, even egregious, and I was hoping to provoke you to some meaningful discussion.
So, I would like to offer to take you to lunch or coffee as a way of saying "truce" and "let's start over". Notwithstanding my comments in this thread, it's obvious you are sharp and well-read and I could benefit from the conversation. Perhaps I could add value to you as well.
We are local to one another. I will look on your blog to find a way to contact you outside of this thread. I look forward to getting lunch or coffee if you are inclined. Thanks.
Patrick, I don't think I was ever angry at you. But your suggestion that I was angry toward you did get me to thinking about my emotions when it comes to the Christian religion, and I have had to acknowledge to myself that I do harbor anger in the matter. I haven't figured out yet, however, just with what or whom I have been angry (and apparently continue to be). And I have come to regret that I have no doubt spoken intemperately because of the anger. For, like you, I feel that I am "in it together" with individuals and have compassion for them, whatever I might say about their beliefs with which I "have problems." I haven't been careful to draw the distinction, unfortunately.
DeletePatrick, thanks for your act of reconciliation. I wish I had read it closer to the day you posted it rather than only a few minutes ago. This is not a good time for me to consider taking you up on the offer, but if you are willing to leave it standing there for the moment, I may become inclined to do so after things have settled down.
ReplyDeleteMorris, no worries. We can leave it standing. About a week ago through my wife's Facebook account I sent you a msg with my email address. I trust you got it. Catch up down the road if you are inclined. Coffee is on me. Best...
DeletePatrick, I've searched my own and my Moristotle & Co. Facebook pages to try to find your message, but could not. My email address is shown (publicly, I believe, but maybe not - I'm far from comprehending the ins and outs of Facebook) under the "Contact and Basic Info" part of my own page's "About" section.
DeleteDo you teach at UNC Greensboro? On some of its web pages I do find listed a person with your name (e.g., in the list of 2013 Capstone Research Projects: "Patrick Sawyer, 'The synergy of self, voice, work, and the world'"), but not on the Faculty and Staff page of Communication Studies. If you are at UNCG, I could send an email to one of the faculty or staff listed there and ask that he or she forward it to you, if that would be okay with you.
For possibly working in the other direction, I even searched UNC-Chapel Hill's website for myself, as a retiree from UNC General Administration (I do have a unc.edu email address), but did not find me.
Glad we were ultimately able to connect through email over the last couple of days. Thanks for trying to find me.
ReplyDeleteI did double Masters work at UNCW and UNCG and yes my Masters' thesis at UNCG was "The Synergy of Self, Voice, Work, and the World" It is about four epistemological standpoints that speak to the philosophical and practical issues of corporate and workplace democracy with a focus on the co-op movement. Exciting stuff, eh? Actually it's a little exciting.
Look forward to perhaps connecting down the road. Best...
Patrick, your thesis does sound interesting. Is it on the web where I might access it?
DeleteMorris, I don't think it can be public accessed at UNCG but can check. Of course I can email it to you. Will connect with you there about it. You probably will make like the 10th person who has read it, putting its exposure in the double digits, which one could say is a milestone of sorts (Ha!), so thanks!
ReplyDeleteHa! I love it. And if you read yesterday's opening chapter of my 1974 novel, The Unmaking of the President: A Bicentennial Entertainment, it'll inch its way in the vicinity of five who have read it.
DeleteFive is now in reach!
DeleteI think that five has now actually been reached, perhaps even one or two more. It would be nice to have some evidence of it. <grin>
Delete