November 07, 2003

What Constitutes an Expression of Truth in a Political Arena of Meaninglessness?

This post is a response to ~gauche regarding one of my November 1 post.

Dr. Lower repeatedly refers to the “self-righteous” to describe conservative Christians. As I have referenced repeatedly, everything I am or am trying to become is based on study of the scriptures. I do not claim to have achieved it, but I do claim it as my motivation. Lower rejects this as a possibility. By implication, he claims that the only way someone could derive any conservative principles from scripture is if they are “fundamentalists” of the same stripe as the very people who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. He goes on to evaluate streams of “Christian” thought by his own definition of “compassionate” – which he himself does not define. He claims that people who hold conservative principles are arrogant, belligerent, uncompassionate, and interested in social inequity that increases their own power – he implies that only wealthy and powerful “so-called Christians” would align themselves politically with Republicans. He does not support any assertion he makes about conservative Christians, but merely declares his observations “self-evident.”

I do not think I am imposing my own ideas of what a Christian is when I say that they are not arrogant, not belligerent, actually compassionate, interested in social equality, and not universally wealthy. I am the Scotsman in your assertion of the fallacy. I like the sugar. Dr. Lower uses whitewashed hate speech to rally the indignation of those who already tend to agree with him to improve the status of his own political position.

Mr. Dubuque has this to say:

"After claiming to believe everything the Bible says to be literally and unequivocally true, Conservatives then quietly ignore whatever doesn't suit their selfish, materialistic, profit-seeking lifestyle. In fact, by insisting that everything in that book is equally inspired by God, they can use whatever they need in a particular situation to argue all kinds of conflicting viewpoints. They use Paul's teaching, for example, to defend beliefs that contradict Jesus."
His hermenutic does not seem to accept the authoritative nature of scripture that is assumed by the Protestant Christians commonly associated with conservatives. He practices a type of Liberation Theology that sees any and all attempts that can remotely be linked to liberation as the standard of the knowledge of God’s Will. This is an innovative concept that only really becomes possible after rejecting a large portion of the New Testament (i.e. the letters from Paul). I reject the notion that Christians do not follow the tenets of Liberation Theology only if they are selfish or profit-seeking. Dubuque is the one who picks and chooses his proof texts. Yes, I believe that a Christian views the entire Bible as contextually authoritative.

You may well have “progressive” politics that come out of your Christian faith. I do not believe that is the case with Mr. Dubuque. He spends much too much time on punchy political assertions with a selective hermenutic that indicates more of a willingness to reframe the Bible to suit his political thought rather than the other way around.

You are correct (not that it was central to my previous post's point) - I am imposing my own ideas regarding "what a Christian is" in my critiques of others. The thing is, I do not claim these as my own ideas - I receive the scriptures as authoritative - a point I made in the previous post. I unashamedly believe that a Christian is someone who has responded to the message of hope and peace described in the gospels in a way that is described by the Christian scriptures. I believe that "a real Christian" will seek to do and understand the Will of God and will strive to conform their lives to the instructions of the canonical scriptures. To do it the other way around is to be missing something.

Posted by Blandus at November 7, 2003 11:18 PM
Comments