I recently made a rare foray into FB land, unwittingly landing in disagreement. I guess FB is a bit like walking through a cow pasture -- poop is everywhere and a wary eye is needed. I've tried to avoid the controversial stuff because it is 'poop' to me these days. But I know these matters matter and so I enjoy 'going there' from time to time. It seemed right to comment here, though the whole things is a few days old and has no real consequence except for the friendships involved and the kindness of said friends to engage the matter. With that, here be!
As to the friendly discussion re. the article by Wolfe on Evangelical Discourse...
Thank you for the thoughtful replies.
I've been off-grid and reticent. I unwittingly confronted two
camps of strong belief, obtuse about both Moore and SBC difficulties. For-what-it's worth, to me Moore has seemed sincere and principled and the SBC stuff is largely off-radar, but that's all another subject.
On
re-reading, I confess I just think the author is right and those who
disagree do so because his conclusions differ from where they have
landed on the implications. We all have to guard against that, which is what he is, in
part, critiquing. That is, it is very difficult to set aside one's
presuppositions about, say, the recent border issue and talk calmly
about it.
The
fact I did not call it “border atrocity” or some such like is
case in point. Some would dismiss my comments for that indiscretion.
But if I've already determined it is atrocity, what is left to talk
about? No one is in favor of atrocity – and if they are no
conversation can be had.
And
this brings my point: “Randy is in favor of separating children
from their parents.” As soon as I or anyone disagrees with
that statement we become people of nuance, attempting to “make
distinctions or qualifications or systematize or consider competing
goods," to use the author's language.
This is what grieves me on this whole
matter and others like it: because someone believes there may be good
policy or at least good will in spite of the apparently egregious fallout at the border; because
someone dares to doubt the coverage and admits being embarrassed at
the outrage; because of that some are bad, obviously in favor of
separating children from their parents.
For me, this quote is the point of it all: “...social justice evangelicals
employ certain socio-rhetorical devices, taken largely from the
broader public discourse, that advantage them over their opponents.
It is not just that these devices conceal a lack of reason; they
are substitutes for reason; and they work best
in civil public discourse.” [my emphasis]
This problem is constant and the whole
discussion winds up meaning I [in this case] am considered in favor
of separating children from their parents. Period. Distinction and
nuance is disallowed because the decision is made going in.
I am a feeler, which makes this worse.
I find myself placed in the camp of “those who are in favor of
separating children from their parents," and, dare I say it, that
hurts the most. It is not fair because it precludes thoughtful
reason.
I think that is the author's point.
He makes this point in synopsis at the
end and it applies to me, if no one else:
“What evangelicals need
most today is actual moral reasoning, one that recognizes
complexity; clear distinctions; clarified principles; competing
goods; the penultimate and ultimate ends of the civil,
ecclesiastical, and domestic societies; a multiplicity of
responsibilities and duties; and prudence. Evangelical leaders,
especially social justice evangelicals, use the sort of rhetoric that precludes such moral reasoning, and instead they socialize their
followers into a fallacious, cheap, and harmful moral rhetoric—one
that is more effective in winning than in discovering and communicating moral truth.”
It seems to me that in a context
separated from the painful political mess of our day Wolfe's comments would be
non-controversial.
That's all. Thanks for 'listening'. :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment