“The irony here is that their voice will necessarily matter progressively less as time goes on, because the average person will ultimately be unable to distinguish what CT thinks from what the world in general believes.” Bitter irony, indeed. Like a snake eating it’s own tale is the one who fears men. They’ve plagued their own thinking with “what will we be known for?” theology and like any sin, it’s self-devouring. Rigney calls this- what many of us can do and what CT is doing- “image management” and pretty soon what you’re known for is being obsessed with what you’re known for. The lack of substance and the pandering will of course continue to hurt them. In an attempt to stay relevant, they’ll continue to become irrelevant.
I read the CT article on pronouns, and the knee-jerk reaction to condemn it on Twitter/X is disappointing. Once again, Christians are quick to pounce on perceived threats or jump on the bandwagon.
The article is a survey of different perspectives not a wholesale endorsement on any position. If anything, the main thrust of the article is simply Christians need to pick their battles carefully and not view each other as enemies, but Heaven forbid that one approach this issue with nuance and thoughtfulness. It's either, you're for us or against us, right? This begs the question, is it that CT has gone heretic, or are its critics dogmatic?
I, for one, have noticed a trend to intellectual disinterest and mob-mentality within Christianity. Many Christians cling to black-and-white paradigms, calling anything that doesn't conform to it heretical or blasphemous. Of course, that is not to say that heretics and blasphemers don't exist. Nuance, once again, is critical to the conversation. Sweeping judgements and hasty generalizations don't make for good apologetics.
Now, as for this "sin of nuance," I would counter with the "sin of common-sense hermeneutics." In the article, Tradition, the Bible, and America’s Debate over Slavery," Dr. Paul Gutacker writes,
"A common-sense hermeneutic meant that simple interpretations of scripture carried greater weight. The proslavery argument was fairly easy to understand: there was no obvious “thou shalt not own slaves” verse, but there were plenty of passages that seemed to assume the existence of slavery (“slaves obey your masters”).
The antislavery case relied on more complicated exegesis. It always involved at least one step of inference. For example, people said that the “golden rule” prohibited slavery because no one wanted to be a slave. Because it always required at least one step of interpretation, the antislavery argument was necessarily less persuasive. "
As you can see, the slippery slope goes both ways. There are those who use nuance to justify the unjustifiable. There are those who oversimplify an idea, creating strawmen out of the Bible.
I've seen the drift too. Francis Schaeffer would probably nod his head with Machen on the comment of "Told ya." I think Tim Keller did a decent job at approaching cultural drift in a graceful manner. Life after the Fall is hard. Oy.
“The irony here is that their voice will necessarily matter progressively less as time goes on, because the average person will ultimately be unable to distinguish what CT thinks from what the world in general believes.” Bitter irony, indeed. Like a snake eating it’s own tale is the one who fears men. They’ve plagued their own thinking with “what will we be known for?” theology and like any sin, it’s self-devouring. Rigney calls this- what many of us can do and what CT is doing- “image management” and pretty soon what you’re known for is being obsessed with what you’re known for. The lack of substance and the pandering will of course continue to hurt them. In an attempt to stay relevant, they’ll continue to become irrelevant.
I read the CT article on pronouns, and the knee-jerk reaction to condemn it on Twitter/X is disappointing. Once again, Christians are quick to pounce on perceived threats or jump on the bandwagon.
The article is a survey of different perspectives not a wholesale endorsement on any position. If anything, the main thrust of the article is simply Christians need to pick their battles carefully and not view each other as enemies, but Heaven forbid that one approach this issue with nuance and thoughtfulness. It's either, you're for us or against us, right? This begs the question, is it that CT has gone heretic, or are its critics dogmatic?
I, for one, have noticed a trend to intellectual disinterest and mob-mentality within Christianity. Many Christians cling to black-and-white paradigms, calling anything that doesn't conform to it heretical or blasphemous. Of course, that is not to say that heretics and blasphemers don't exist. Nuance, once again, is critical to the conversation. Sweeping judgements and hasty generalizations don't make for good apologetics.
Now, as for this "sin of nuance," I would counter with the "sin of common-sense hermeneutics." In the article, Tradition, the Bible, and America’s Debate over Slavery," Dr. Paul Gutacker writes,
"A common-sense hermeneutic meant that simple interpretations of scripture carried greater weight. The proslavery argument was fairly easy to understand: there was no obvious “thou shalt not own slaves” verse, but there were plenty of passages that seemed to assume the existence of slavery (“slaves obey your masters”).
The antislavery case relied on more complicated exegesis. It always involved at least one step of inference. For example, people said that the “golden rule” prohibited slavery because no one wanted to be a slave. Because it always required at least one step of interpretation, the antislavery argument was necessarily less persuasive. "
As you can see, the slippery slope goes both ways. There are those who use nuance to justify the unjustifiable. There are those who oversimplify an idea, creating strawmen out of the Bible.
I've seen the drift too. Francis Schaeffer would probably nod his head with Machen on the comment of "Told ya." I think Tim Keller did a decent job at approaching cultural drift in a graceful manner. Life after the Fall is hard. Oy.