Comments on: Doctrine And Sincerity http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=doctrine-and-sincerity n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John Schwenkler http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/comment-page-1/#comment-12994 John Schwenkler Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:33:53 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/#comment-12994 <blockquote>It is quite reasonable to conclude that Obama, among others, is a sincere liberal Protestant who is therefore going theologically awry <em>because</em> he is a sincere liberal Protestant ...</blockquote> Though note that Santorum was doing more than that: he wasn't just saying that Obama is a (theologically or politically) liberal Protestant and is therefore <em>mistaken</em> about what Christianity demands (which may be true), but rather that someone like this simply <em>IS NOT A CHRISTIAN</em> (which is ridiculous - and, frankly, deeply un-Christian).

It is quite reasonable to conclude that Obama, among others, is a sincere liberal Protestant who is therefore going theologically awry because he is a sincere liberal Protestant …

Though note that Santorum was doing more than that: he wasn’t just saying that Obama is a (theologically or politically) liberal Protestant and is therefore mistaken about what Christianity demands (which may be true), but rather that someone like this simply IS NOT A CHRISTIAN (which is ridiculous – and, frankly, deeply un-Christian).

]]> By: L.T. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/comment-page-1/#comment-12977 L.T. Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:02:54 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/#comment-12977 My guess is that for Santorum this is a distinction without a difference. Liberal Protestantism is, almost by definition, in his religious worldview at least, a doctrinal system built on insincerity. Isn't it possible to sincerely believe in an ideology that is arguably disingenuous or even cynical at its core? Or is this just a problem of throwing around equivocal moralistic terms like "sincerity?" My guess is that for Santorum this is a distinction without a difference. Liberal Protestantism is, almost by definition, in his religious worldview at least, a doctrinal system built on insincerity. Isn’t it possible to sincerely believe in an ideology that is arguably disingenuous or even cynical at its core? Or is this just a problem of throwing around equivocal moralistic terms like “sincerity?”

]]> By: Grumpy Old Man http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/comment-page-1/#comment-12975 Grumpy Old Man Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:01:28 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/#comment-12975 Daniel, that's fair. The "Shining City on a Hill" meme that gives America a uniquely prophetic rôle is perhaps less angry than "Afrocentric Christianity," but both tend to substitute one people for the whole church. Each people, like each person, may have a unique vocation. To elevate one's own people above all others theologically, is a grave error. Daniel, that’s fair.

The “Shining City on a Hill” meme that gives America a uniquely prophetic rôle is perhaps less angry than “Afrocentric Christianity,” but both tend to substitute one people for the whole church. Each people, like each person, may have a unique vocation.

To elevate one’s own people above all others theologically, is a grave error.

]]> By: kitstolz http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/comment-page-1/#comment-12970 kitstolz Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:48:51 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/#comment-12970 Well put: Santorum cannot know if Obama is sincere or not in his faith, but nonetheless insists that the candidate joined the church for political advantage. That doesn't follow logically. Also worth noting -- Larison critiques Obama's faith as being "liberal Protestant." Potentially flawed, but not necessarily ethnocentric. The fairness here is appreciated. Well put: Santorum cannot know if Obama is sincere or not in his faith, but nonetheless insists that the candidate joined the church for political advantage. That doesn’t follow logically.

Also worth noting — Larison critiques Obama’s faith as being “liberal Protestant.” Potentially flawed, but not necessarily ethnocentric.

The fairness here is appreciated.

]]> By: Daniel Larison http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/comment-page-1/#comment-12969 Daniel Larison Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:22:48 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/#comment-12969 I think there is a difference between actually Afrocentric theology and, say, the Russian nationalism and cultural traditions you might encounter at an Orthodox parish, and even with phyletism this is a matter of privileging national differences over religious identity rather than substituting one's own people for Israel and the Church. A theology that explicitly changes claims about who Christ is and does not mean these changes metaphorically or simply as a pastoral effort to help people recognize their unity in Christ goes far beyond the errors of phyletism. The greatest danger of an ethnocentric church is that it insists on co-opting Christ for its own people and denying basic scriptural claims about Christ's descent, which are central to His saving role as the Messiah. To the extent that a church wants to depict Christ in ways that resemble the people in the congregation, this may not be ideal but could be pastorally valuable. However, once you move beyond depictions or metaphors and start making historical and theological claims you have clearly gone off the rails. I think there is a difference between actually Afrocentric theology and, say, the Russian nationalism and cultural traditions you might encounter at an Orthodox parish, and even with phyletism this is a matter of privileging national differences over religious identity rather than substituting one’s own people for Israel and the Church. A theology that explicitly changes claims about who Christ is and does not mean these changes metaphorically or simply as a pastoral effort to help people recognize their unity in Christ goes far beyond the errors of phyletism. The greatest danger of an ethnocentric church is that it insists on co-opting Christ for its own people and denying basic scriptural claims about Christ’s descent, which are central to His saving role as the Messiah.

To the extent that a church wants to depict Christ in ways that resemble the people in the congregation, this may not be ideal but could be pastorally valuable. However, once you move beyond depictions or metaphors and start making historical and theological claims you have clearly gone off the rails.

]]> By: Adam01 http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/comment-page-1/#comment-12968 Adam01 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:12:38 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/#comment-12968 Grumpy Old Man, Point taken, but saying that a church has ethnic characteristics and extrapolating your own ethnicities history until it merges with the image of Christ Himself are pretty different things. Grumpy Old Man,

Point taken, but saying that a church has ethnic characteristics and extrapolating your own ethnicities history until it merges with the image of Christ Himself are pretty different things.

]]> By: Grumpy Old Man http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/comment-page-1/#comment-12967 Grumpy Old Man Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:09:06 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/#comment-12967 Most churches have an ethnic or cultural aspect as well as a theology and a liturgy. When taken to extremes, it's a fault and even a heresy ("phyletism" is the Orthodox term). Unless we pretend that white Americans have no culture, but minorities do (something a lot of people believe), we have to acknowledge that it isn't just the Wrights who are ethnocentric. The guy's still a blowhard when it comes to politics, though. Most churches have an ethnic or cultural aspect as well as a theology and a liturgy. When taken to extremes, it’s a fault and even a heresy (“phyletism” is the Orthodox term). Unless we pretend that white Americans have no culture, but minorities do (something a lot of people believe), we have to acknowledge that it isn’t just the Wrights who are ethnocentric.

The guy’s still a blowhard when it comes to politics, though.

]]> By: Adam01 http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/comment-page-1/#comment-12966 Adam01 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:48:04 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/08/07/doctrine-and-sincerity/#comment-12966 That is, I think, a fair point on which to critique Obama. I don't know what was in his heart or his head during his years at TUCC, but I think we can fairly critique an overtly, proudly "ethnocentric" Christian church as barely worthy of the name Christian at all. That is, I think, a fair point on which to critique Obama. I don’t know what was in his heart or his head during his years at TUCC, but I think we can fairly critique an overtly, proudly “ethnocentric” Christian church as barely worthy of the name Christian at all.

]]>