From what I can tell, the initial stimulus for that framework was live footage of Americans in DC and NYC who, upon news of bin Laden’s death, streamed into the streets to cheer his demise.
How we got from that to deploring the reaction of Christians is far from clear. Where’s the direct connection?
Speaking for myself, I didn’t feel much of anything when I switched the TV on late Sunday night, and ran across breaking news of his demise.
The deeper problems is that, in situations like this, you always have some professing believers, usually clergymen, who act morally and emotionally conflicted about the whole thing. Frankly, this incessant handwringing brings the church into disrepute.
In a fallen world there are many shades of gray. But every issue or event isn’t a gray area. In a fallen world, events range along a moral continuum. There are borderline cases somewhere in the middle. But there are more extreme cases at either end of the spectrum.
The Bible itself uses the imagery of “light” and “dark” to morally differentiate good and evil people, good and evil events, in starkly binary terms.
Moral paralysis is a moral weakness. Certain events ought to leave us ambivalent. But it’s inappropriate to have mixed feelings about everything that happens.
To cheer and dance when the Twin Towers were destroyed clearly shows a heart of hatred.
ReplyDeleteBut to be glad that a murderer of innocent people is killed surely can be normal and decent.
I imagine when Hitler was finally found to be dead many decent people were glad.
But there are the gray areas as you say.
Some good words and thought.
Have a terrific Lord's day. Now for the Run for Roses at Churchill Downs.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou've posted several threads on this topic, but I'm not sure I've seen you outline your actual position. Would you do so?
In Christ,
CD
How we got from that to deploring the reaction of Christians is far from clear. Where’s the direct connection?
ReplyDeleteI've been wondering this myself. I figured I must have missed the connection but maybe not.
Moral paralysis is a moral weakness.
Yes. I wonder if the church has gotten too soft, especially the men (present company excluded, of course).
One of the things that has been troubling to me is the harsh tone on all sides.
ReplyDeleteThose who take no pleasure in OBL's death, mourn over it, and say that his whole life was a sad, sinful waste are regarded as "soft", "liberal", and "bringing the church into disrepute", whilst those who celebrate his demise are regarded as "hateful", "mean" or "blood-thirsty".
It is an issue that sadly says more about the state of Christianity than it does about OBL. There is an evident lack of charity, understanding, and willingness to "live and let live" over a relatively minor event. I think of the famous aphorism attributed to St. Francis: "unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity".
I could understand the passion if it was a truly serious point that was hanging in the balances: like salvation by grace, or the authority of Scripture. But something like this warrants a little restraint - even from bloggers - and some stepping back from the doctrinaire trap where we can almost persuade ourselves that our opinions are practically absolute truth.
What brings the church into real disrepute is not the "hand-wringing" of clergy - which I feel is not a helpful description of those ministers of the Lord who are trying to emphasise perhaps more of a pastoral dimension - but the slanging matches between those who are supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ.
Anyone watching this played out on the Reformed blogs must surely have wondered whatever happened to the gospel command, "Love one another as I have loved you; by this shall all men know that you are my disciples." I have seen profound demonstrations of a lack of willingness to be charitable, or to grant liberty to others to believe what they will in this matter. It confirms the caricature that Reformed folk are hot on the theology, and very cold in the practical application of a Christ-filled life.
(I hereby apologise in advance for any offence I might cause. That is not my intention.)
Before the attack dogs are set loose, I apologise. The aphorism I quoted is popularly attributed to St. Augustine, not St. Francis, but its origin is obscure.
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteYour complaints are double-dealing. You’ve gone onto other blogs and initiated attacks on their treatment of bin Laden’s demise. You then turn around and affect “sadness” over “slanging matches.” Well, it takes two to get into a “slanging match.”
I rarely find the world quoting Jn 13:35. How many unbelievers even read the Gospel of John? So, no, that doesn’t bring the church into disrepute.
The only folks who quote Jn 13:35 are people like you–who, ironically, always quote it as a weapon to wield against your opponents.
No, what brings the church into disrepute is the spectacle of morally hamstrung representatives of the Christian faith who can never rise to the challenge of a crisis. Their only response to counterterrorism is to issue their predictable, formulaic, limp-wristed laments.
They offer no practical guidance for dealing with a real-world threat like global jihad.
The message that sends to the world is the irrelevance of the church.
Your complaints are double-dealing. You’ve gone onto other blogs and initiated attacks on their treatment of bin Laden’s demise. You then turn around and affect “sadness” over “slanging matches.” Well, it takes two to get into a “slanging match.”
ReplyDeleteIndeed it takes two to tango as the saying goes.
Here is some context for Steve's prior allusion.
When the Wicked Perish There is Shouting - It's here that Mr. Landless makes his first appearance at TF's blog tut-tutting him for his suggestion that Christians might rightly rejoice over God's justice being visited upon His enemies, specifically UBL.
TF responds here, and afterwards Mr. Landless leaves a link to his blog in the combox meta.
TF then responds to the blog post by Mr. Landless, and within that combox Mr. Landless walks away, only to re-appear here.
Ever the victim he upbraids the benighted thusly:
"What brings the church into real disrepute is not the "hand-wringing" of clergy - which I feel is not a helpful description of those ministers of the Lord who are trying to emphasise perhaps more of a pastoral dimension - but the slanging matches between those who are supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ.
But it takes two to tango, no?
"Anyone watching this played out on the Reformed blogs must surely have wondered whatever happened to the gospel command, "Love one another as I have loved you; by this shall all men know that you are my disciples." I have seen profound demonstrations of a lack of willingness to be charitable, or to grant liberty to others to believe what they will in this matter. It confirms the caricature that Reformed folk are hot on the theology, and very cold in the practical application of a Christ-filled life."
That doesn't sound very charitable.
Hypocrisy, anyone? Physician, heal thyself!
In Christ,
CD
@Steve: it does indeed take two get into a slanging match, but it is surprising how nasty it can become. Telling someone to get a box of kleenex, for instance, and "cry in the corner", is a rhetorical style that shouts charity!
ReplyDeleteSetting aside Coram Deo's characterisation of my posts as "attacks" - and I am glad he has gone to the effort to link them all so that people could read them if they choose - I will address your points.
Secondly, I was not aware that counter-terrorism was part of the orthodox Christian creed, or was a binding command upon Christian people. "All men will know that you are my disciples if you engage fully in counter-terrorism operations for the sake of national security?"
Unfortunately, you also persist in caricaturing people who think differently from yourself. "Morally hamstrung" implies that folks like yourself are more moral than folks like myself. It suggests that your sense of justice is better; you have a more acute morality - one less crippled than people like me. I think that is an amazing statement indeed, and a very dangerous assumption.
It is not up to the church to offer practical counter-terrorist guidance. The church's job is to proclaim the gospel.
As for relevance; the church has always been irrelevant to men. Being hot on the political button will not make the church any more relevant to those estranged from God than the Anglican church experimenting with services-in-a-pub, or the megachurch predilection for strobe lights and cinema screens.
@Coram Deo: Since we have now arrived at ad hominem personal attacks, kindly indicate where my hypocrisy is?
ReplyDeleteYour charges seem to be:
1.) I "walked away" from TF's blog (walking away from a situation is apparently hypocrisy?)
2.) I have posted on a few blogs about this issue (I have posted on blogs about other issues too, but since this issue has been topical it gets more of a run).
What is it that I must heal myself from?
JASON LANDLESS SAID:
ReplyDelete“@Steve: it does indeed take two get into a slanging match, but it is surprising how nasty it can become. Telling someone to get a box of kleenex, for instance, and ‘cry in the corner’, is a rhetorical style that shouts charity!”
There is no excuse for professing Christians like you to be all tied up in knots over something as morally unambiguous as the death of bin Laden. That reaction is decadent, effete, and overbred.
There’s a time for moral clarity and firmness in the face of manifest evil. Now is such a time.
“I was not aware that counter-terrorism was part of the orthodox Christian creed, or was a binding command upon Christian people.”
Then so much the worse for your lack of awareness. But men have a duty to protect their families. Have a duty to protect their dependents. Have a duty to protect their wives, children, mothers, grandmothers, &c., against unjust aggression. If you’re so morally clueless that that’s a revelation to you, then shame on you.
Oh, and I don’t think your Amish since I don’t think the Amish are into computer technology.
“"Morally hamstrung’ implies that folks like yourself are more moral than folks like myself.’”
My position is moral while yours is the abdication of moral obligations.
“It suggests that your sense of justice is better; you have a more acute morality - one less crippled than people like me.”
Glad you’re beginning to see the light.
“I think that is an amazing statement indeed, and a very dangerous assumption.”
Which reflects your incapacity for self-criticism, since you to the same thing in reverse.
“It is not up to the church to offer practical counter-terrorist guidance. The church's job is to proclaim the gospel.”
i) If it’s not the job of the church to comment on bin Laden’s death, then that objection cuts both ways. In that event, clergymen should just shut up and leave the ethical analysis to the laity.
ii) On the other hand, it is the job of the church to speak to personal and social ethics.
iii) For that matter, some clergymen are military chaplains. Some are retired servicemen. Some of them are in the army reserves, &c.
Some clergymen majored in international relations.
So your hard-n-fast distinction is arbitrary.
“As for relevance; the church has always been irrelevant to men.”
It’s never more irrelevant than when it sits out the great issues of our time, letting others make all the tough calls.
@Coram Deo: Since we have now arrived at ad hominem personal attacks, kindly indicate where my hypocrisy is?
ReplyDeleteAre you really so blind? Please re-read my last comment and reflect a bit.
Your charges seem to be:
1.) I "walked away" from TF's blog (walking away from a situation is apparently hypocrisy?)
In the order asked; "yes", and "no, not necessarily". Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. See my request above.
2.) I have posted on a few blogs about this issue (I have posted on blogs about other issues too, but since this issue has been topical it gets more of a run).
Okay.
What is it that I must heal myself from?
See my request above.
In Christ,
CD
@Steve:
ReplyDeleteOne fallacy and personal attack upon another. Gotta love it!
I simply ask: how is being uncomfortable with celebrating a human death at all tantamount to being morally ambiguous? A firm morality, and a strong commitment to justice, are both quite compatible with a robust compassion for others. It is a fallacy to imply that those who have x cannot have y, without first explaining how this is the case.
It is simply false to assert I am "tied up in knots". Your persistent accusation that those who differ from you in this matter are morally deficient, is simply irrational. It makes no logical sense, insofar as it is predicated apparently on nothing else but prejudice.
Like most Americans, you view this through the prism of your country, which becomes the locus of morality. Because OBL allegedly orchestrated 9/11, he is your enemy and you find reasons to clothe his death in moral arguments. However, if you are to be properly consistent, then you should also be asserting the moral duty of men to assassinate Kim Jong Il who butchers his own people in massive human experimentation camps, and the many evil despots in the Middle-East. Or should they not be killed by the United States because their morality is the business of their people? Is morality universal? Is moral action universal, or is it incumbent on single countries for certain issues?
People certainly do have a moral obligation to defend their families. What I marvel at is the inconsistency that links this obligation to the shooting of a terrorist half-a-world away.
My statement regarding the church's mission received the response of a strawman. I am never impressed with fallacious arguments, particularly when they are layered with name-calling and veiled insults.
In reply, I simply state that I doubt very strongly that any government in the world consults clergymen on its counter-terrorist operations (unless it's Muslim clergy, regarding the social implications). I also doubt very strongly that many clergymen, even in very liberal circles, regard it a duty of the church to be a counter-terrorist think-tank. On the other hand, social, ethical and political commentary falls into a different category. Even here, I believe the church should remain politically neutral in most matters (except when the laws of man contradict the laws of God). When politics and theology combine the results are usually spectacularly unedifying, as we have been seeing.
You have made it clear that you believe yourself morally superior due to the opinion you hold - which of course, you are not; (your inability to discuss this issue without character attacks, testifies to that!); if morality were such a simple matter then we would not need the gospel. Unfortunately this attitude probably precludes you from looking at the issue from more than one angle. Yours is not the only way of seeing the world.
@Coram Deo: I'm not interested in playing games. Your business apparently is character assassination of those with whom you disagree; mine is not. If you can cogently and intelligibly explain your accusation of hypocrisy, then please do so.
ReplyDeleteComments like "are you really so blind" etc. is a species of fallaciously begging the question. It would be appreciated if comments of this nature were omitted in the future and you could engage simply with the issues.
@Coram Deo: I'm not interested in playing games. Your business apparently is character assassination of those with whom you disagree; mine is not.
ReplyDeleteActually - as Steve has already pointed out, and your latest comments confirm - the "game" in play is your "game" of studiously avoiding any sort of critical self-reflection. This should tell you something, but apparently it doesn't.
If you can cogently and intelligibly explain your accusation of hypocrisy, then please do so.
I can, but why should I?
Comments like "are you really so blind" etc. is a species of fallaciously begging the question.
Or alternatively they're an attempt to urge you into a moment of critical self-reflection, which you seemingly avoid like the plague.
It would be appreciated if comments of this nature were omitted in the future and you could engage simply with the issues.
LOL! Pot meet kettle; kettle, pot...
I'm sure omitting comments that challenge you would be appreciated, since you seem to very much enjoy your self-satisfied slumber.
You've not even begun to deal with the issues raised by TF or Steve, yet here you are again hypocritically accusing others of engaging in the very tactics you regularly employ, (ad hom, question begging, etc).
I question whether you are willfully, or judicially blind because there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Can you see it yet?
In Christ,
CD
JASON LANDLESS SAID:
ReplyDelete“I simply ask: how is being uncomfortable with celebrating a human death at all tantamount to being morally ambiguous?”
“Uncomfortable”? You said Christians should “mourn” his death.
“A firm morality, and a strong commitment to justice, are both quite compatible with a robust compassion for others.”
There’s such a thing as misplaced compassion. Amoral compassion. Morally indiscriminate compassion.
Save your compassion for the survivors and the victims.
And even if you think he’s entitled to our compassion while he was alive, that’s moot after he’s dead.
“It makes no logical sense, insofar as it is predicated apparently on nothing else but prejudice. Like most Americans, you view this through the prism of your country, which becomes the locus of morality.”
Speaking of “prejudice,” now we’re getting to your real motivation: petty, resentful envy at American hyperpower.
“Because OBL allegedly orchestrated 9/11, he is your enemy and you find reasons to clothe his death in moral arguments.”
“Allegedly” orchestrated 9/11? Are you a 9/11 Truther?
“However, if you are to be properly consistent, then you should also be asserting the moral duty of men to assassinate Kim Jong Il who butchers his own people in massive human experimentation camps, and the many evil despots in the Middle-East.”
If a head-of-state in N. Korean or the Mideast poses a serious threat to the safety of Americans, then the US president has a right and duty to neutralize the threat.
The fact that a head-of-state is merely oppressive to his own people is not sufficient reason to pull the trigger.
“Or should they not be killed by the United States because their morality is the business of their people? Is morality universal? Is moral action universal, or is it incumbent on single countries for certain issues?”
Some countries are in a position to act, while others lack the wherewithal.
To say a head-of-state has a duty to protect his citizens against unjust aggression (e.g. bin Laden) does not entail that he has a duty to protect to do the same for other nationalities. The citizens of each country have some responsibility for their own national destiny.
Our president was elected to represent the interests of the US. He was not elected by the populace of N. Korea.
Cont. “People certainly do have a moral obligation to defend their families. What I marvel at is the inconsistency that links this obligation to the shooting of a terrorist half-a-world away.”
ReplyDeleteMere geography is morally irrelevant. Bin Laden orchestrated the attack from a foreign country. He then went into hiding in a foreign country. So, yes, we have a right to retaliate wherever he is. The fact that he was a fugitive from justice hardly confers immunity on his actions.
Likewise, if N. Korean launched an ICBM at the US, we’d have a right to retaliate, even though the attack originated on foreign soil. (Indeed, we’d have the right to preempt the attack.)
“In reply, I simply state that I doubt very strongly that any government in the world consults clergymen on its counter-terrorist operations (unless it's Muslim clergy, regarding the social implications).”
A red herring.
“I also doubt very strongly that many clergymen, even in very liberal circles, regard it a duty of the church to be a counter-terrorist think-tank. On the other hand, social, ethical and political commentary falls into a different category.”
Since you’re morally obtuse, let’s take a concrete example. An 18-year-old boy is contemplating a career in the military or CIA. He goes to his pastor to discuss the morality of that profession.
His pastor, if competent, has an obligation to give his young parishioner advice on the moral dimensions of a career in the military or CIA.
“You have made it clear that you believe yourself morally superior due to the opinion you hold.”
I said my position is morally superior.
“Unfortunately this attitude probably precludes you from looking at the issue from more than one angle. Yours is not the only way of seeing the world.”
True. We can also see the world from Hitler’s perspective. Or Caligula’s. Or Genghis Khan’s. Or Shoko Asahara’s.
True. We can also see the world from Hitler’s perspective. Or Caligula’s. Or Genghis Khan’s. Or Shoko Asahara’s.
ReplyDelete...or else join with Mr. Landless and see it from UBL's perspective; that is if we are able to see it through our tears of mourning over his untimely and violent demise at the hands of America's version of Imperial Stormtroopers.
Upon reflection I'd like to offer an apology to Mr. Landless. I now realize his lack of clarity is likely attributable to his sustained state of grief over the death of UBL.
With respect to dealing with death and dying it's best not to attempt to approach someone who is grieving over the loss of a loved one with intellectual appeals to God's sovereignty, but rather to gently come alongside and soothe and comfort them with God's graciousness and compassion.
Mr. Landless is clearly grief stricken, and therefore in a state of mourning over UBL; and mean ol' TF, Steve, and myself must bear our collective responsibility for aggravating his tender disposition.
My sympathies on your loss, Mr. Landless.
In Christ,
CD