;)
Nazis, Pharisees and Lazy Logic
Posted by Dave Miller in Baptist Life
Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies states that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” Whatever the topic of the debate, wherever the starting point of the discourse, as time goes on it becomes almost inevitable that one or the other of the parties in the discussion will call the other a Nazi. Political conservatives call liberals Nazis. Liberals tag conservatives with the same designation.
It is a lazy way to argue. All I have to do is find some kind of link between your thought and something Hitler or some Nazi said and I have painted you in the darkest of colors, staking out the moral high ground in the process.
Often, the link is poorly thought out, a form of lazy logic that has been designated as “reductio ad Hitlerum.” Hitler believed the sky was blue. Therefore, since you believe the sky is blue, you must be a Nazi. Nazis were evil and their views were an offense against mankind, but just because some Nazi, even Hitler, believed something or said something does not make everyone who makes a similar statement a Nazi. Hitler may have been a vegetarian, but that does make everyone who is a vegetarian a Nazi.
In the Baptist blog world, we have our own versions of Godwin’s Law and reductio ad Hitlerum. When we are in a verbal spar, we do not look so much to brand our opponents as Nazis as we do Pharisees. The Baptist form of Godwin’s Law might be stated this way. “As an online discussion between Baptists grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Pharisees approaches 1.” The tendency to find Phariseeism in everything our opponent thinks, says or does might be called “reductio ad Phariseeum.”
In Matthew 23, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees in the strongest of terms – terms that go beyond much of what we would call civil discourse. I addressed this in my last post here. Recently, I read a comment by a blogger who despises conservatives and constantly rails against anyone who believes in inerrancy and excoriates the leaders of the conservative resurgence in the SBC. In his comment, he rewrote Matthew 23, but substituted “Presslerites” and “Pattersonians” for Pharisees. He had the arrogance (yes, I believe that is what it is) to rewrite the scriptures to suit his prejudices. He hates conservatives so he labels them as modern-day Pharisees.
Some months ago, a prominent blogger who has written a constant barrage of articles blasting the current SBC leadership did something similar. He did not limit himself to just those who followed Pressler and Patterson. He directed his biblical rewrite against all Baptist leaders and pastors. He rewrote Matthew 23 to condemn all SBC pastors and leaders as Pharisees – hypocrites and blind guides.
It is lazy logic to use the reductio ad Phariseeum argument. Smearing your opponent with the Pharisee tag may seem like a good way make a point on a blog, but it is a low form of discourse.
Who the Pharisees Were
The truth is that there was much to be admired about the Pharisees. The term probably comes from a Hebrew word that means “to separate.” The Pharisees tried to walk in holiness in an unholy world. Some have said that the word refers not to their separationism, but to their passion for “dividing” or interpreting the Scriptures. So, they were men committed to a holy life and to the proper interpretation of scripture. These are noble goals, even if the Pharisees pursed those goals in the wrong way.
It would be easy to say here that Jesus was condemning the Pharisees for their commitment to holiness and to proper interpretation. They were theological conservatives, so Jesus must have meant to condemn all conservatives as hypocrites, as Pharisees. This is classic reductio ad Phariseeum. The Pharisees were conservative therefore all conservatives are Pharisees.
Lazy logic indeed. How easy to paint yourself as the pure seeker of truth while painting your more conservative opponents as the children of the Pharisees!
But Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees for their passions for holiness or their desire to properly interpret the Scriptures (and other Jewish writings). He condemned them for the perverted way they went about that. Jesus taught a high view of Scripture (Matthew 5:18) and the in the NT, God calls us to “be Holy as I am holy.” To simply cast this as a screed against conservatives is to miss what Jesus said about the Pharisees.
Why Jesus Condemned the Pharisees
Read through Matthew 25 and see what it is that Jesus condemns in the Pharisees.
- The Pharisees did not practice what they preached. (Matthew 23:2). They laid heavy burdens and strict rules on others but they did not live out their own messages. If I preach purity while living in impurity, I am mimicking the Pharisees. If I preach generous giving while being stingy, I am being pharisaical.
- The Pharisees desired prominence and honor. (Matthew 23: 6) If I work to make a name for myself, I am imitating these enemies of Christ. Christ called us to die to self. We all have a tendency to live for self instead. The Pharisees took it one step farther – they fought for positions of prominence and influence. They sought titles and power instead of understanding that Kingdom greatness is based on sacrifice and service to others.
- The Pharisees oppressed others for personal gain. (Matthew 23:14) If you have a position of influence, responsibility or authority, you have a mandate from God to use that position to bless those who are under your authority. The Pharisees used the people for their own purposes. As a pastor, I must seek to bless my people. If I use them for my own ends and aims, I am being pharisaical.
- The Pharisees created human rules to control people. (Matthew 23:16-24) They added their own rules and ways to scripture – something none of us is allowed to do. Swearing by the temple was not binding, but swearing by the gold of the temple was? Making an oath by the altar meant nothing, but a oath by the sacrifice on the altar was binding? They were conscientious about legalistic rules about tithing but did not obey what Jesus called the “more important matters of the law” – how they treated other people.
- The Pharisees were “whitewashed tombs.” (Matthew 23:27) They cared more about appearance management, about what others thought of them, than they did about the real condition of their hearts. They kept the outside clean and white, but their hearts were full of all kinds of sin.
- The Pharisees murdered the prophets. They claimed to love the Word, but only love that part of the Word which fits their own desires and ways. When the prophets came preaching hard truths, they killed the prophets. Pharisees strike out at those who confront the sinfulness of their ways.
You can read Matthew 23 and see all that Jesus said about the Pharisees. I have just hit the high points (low points?).
A More Personal Response to Matthew 23
Honestly, as I highlighted those pharisaical tendencies, didn’t you get a little uncomfortable? Can any of us say that we never exhibit any of the qualities of the Pharisees in our own lives? I need to read this passage and confront the Pharisaical tendencies of my own heart, not to use this passage as a weapon to club my blogging opponents. We need to take this passage and look inward, at our own failings, our own weaknesses, our own tendencies and not to simply try to paint our opponents in a negative light.
When we engage in reductio ad Phariseeum, we are in deep danger of working to remove the sliver from the other’s eye while ignoring the beam in our own!
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
I’ve actually dropped back to punt on logic, and am reading one of the kids’ homeschool books about logic, called The Fallacy Detective (or Detectives, or something like that). It’s a basic primer into ways to argue and not to argue, and what the limitations are of many types of argument.
After the past 2 years as a minor blogger and observer of major bloggers, I’ve realized it ought to be required reading for every last one of us. Let’s apply real logic, and at least think through what we’re saying.
Doug
And, to be the first smart-aleck, only a Pharisaic Nazi would insist on logic and call others lazy!!!! There, it’s been said. It’s untrue, but it’s a blog comment. You want truth?
“And, to be the first smart-aleck, only a Pharisaic Nazi would insist on logic and call others lazy!!!!”
Brilliant comment.
By the way, one of our contributors, “Rastis” wrote a really good set of articles on the subject of logic.
I’m not one of the “missing link” guys who can find and add links with abandon. But if you go to the search in the top right and put “Rastis” in, I think his articles will come up.
Or maybe someone else can help me out with actual links.
You won’t see me link in a comment until there’s an idiot proof mechanism for it. Of course, I believe that if you make it idiot proof, someone will make a bigger idiot.
I’ll look at it. It’s just distressing that all across the blog world you see perfect examples of what a Junior High oriented book points out as bad logic.
Then you throw on some Scripture twisting, elevation of fringe issues to majors, and so forth…and many a blog that fusses about people that have done these things then does those same things.
However, I do think that the openness is healthy, if we’ll learn to apply a wee bit of logic, a touch of discernment, and then cover the screen with our Bibles and focus there, we’ll be much better off.
Anyway, I’ve got to get my bunny slippers on and do a little maintenance of my own blog.
Doug
Dave: There is a lot to be admired about the Pharisees? I totally disagree. 1. They were not “holy” because they were doing it for God. They were holy to look good to others. They were more concerned with keeping their own traditions than the actual law of God. “But all their works they do for to be seen of men” (Matt. 23: 5). They loved attention and religious titles (Matt. 23: 6-9). .According to Matthew 21:33-46, they were mostly enemies of Jesus. Christ himself said: “”let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind…” (Matt. 15: 14). Luke 12:1 tells us the motives of the Pharisees were wrong. Much to admire? Hardly. Which was Christ’s point. Where in any of scripture did he point to the Pharisees as those to admire? I do not disagree that we have Pharisees galore in our denomination. That has always been the problem and rightly pointed out, even by the poster who you claim hates conservatives, which I also disagree with. He hates some thing that conservatives have done and rightly so.
I maintain, Debbie, that it is both intellectually lazy and spiritually arrogant to use this passage as a weapon against those you disagree with. all of us have enough of these false tendencies to keep us busy looking within.
Do conservatives have more of these than moderates or liberals? Probably depends who you talk to.
One thing about the Pharisees: they were a political/religious group, and just as one shouldn’t always assume that when John says “The Jews” he means every last descendant of Jacob, but rather either the leadership or just those present, so “the Pharisees” that are critiqued are often the leadership or the cream of the crop. History, at least based on some of the classes I’ve had, records a less dark picture of the Pharisees. They were, at the least, for a century the ones who had tried to live according to the law, down to the last bit. They did it because they thought it was what God wanted.
Where Jesus rebukes them is when they are missing the point. For example, on tithing, he actually commends that they tithe on the spices they grow, but rebukes that it hasn’t been accompanied with compassion for the poor.
Nicodemus, also, is a Pharisee, as is Gamaliel who defends the Apostles before the Sanhedrin.
With the Pharisees, there’s a lot of bathwater, and only a very small baby, but there is a baby there not to be thrown out. However, the bathwater does need to go.
I’m probably looking like too much a defender here: the legalism was way too much. Really it was, but much of it was tradition that the Pharisees thought they had to defend.
The Lord rightly went after the Pharisees who were leading people astray through legalism.
Yet when you see Him one-on-one with Nicodemus, there’s a great amount of patience shown, a great effort to teach. He may have been a solo exception, but he’s one. If there’s one, then there might be more, and our generalization that all Pharisees were evil is invalid. Many, most, nearly all, perhaps, but not all.
I’m done. Have to finish reading Bonhoeffer about what Nazis were really like. They neither had blogs nor senses of humor, neither did they simply hurt feelings.
Doug
You are on a roll, Doug.
Really? Don’t throw the Pharisee out with the bath water? Again, I disagree. I believe the Pharisees were all a lesson in how we are not to be. As for Nicodemus, he clearly needed Christ as was pointed out. The only few Pharisees that were not Jesus’ enemies were those who God did a work in their heart, not because they were Pharisees believing the right things. They were teaching some things correctly, while giving the wrong application to them. Christ was speaking to Nicodemus when he said “you must be born again.” And to point out others who are Pharisees is not exactly wrong. We do have Pharisees in our denomination and not necessarily among ourselves. In fact I believe the log in the eye verse is overused and many times taken out of context. When we as a denomination are messing up, which we have in spades, it is not wrong to point that out. In fact we are told to do so. It’s also how God does sanctification.
If some don’t like that, it may be more because of pride than that the person(such as the poster you are speaking of) is wrong in doing so. I think we need to listen more than squawk that it is being pointed out. What’s lazy is not to listen to the admonition. This poster is wrong on some things he points out, but so right on other things he points out. We need to listen, not condemn for him pointing it out.
Debbie,
Not meaning to throw water on your argument, but you might want to take it up with Jesus who said:
Matthew 23:2-3
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you— but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice…”
He commended their teaching if not their hypocrisy. If it’s good enough for Jesus not to throw the teaching out with the bath water, then perhaps it ought to be good enough for us too.
Now Rick, read the whole chapter and you will have the proper context.
The context of a verse can give background to a verse, but it never negates the clear meaning of a text.
Not sure how the context of the chapter negates the commendation of the Pharisees’ teaching in the verses cited.
More importantly, the context actually reinforces Dave’s main point that we are attracted to and often adopt Pharisaical practices at the same time we resort to name-calling in online debate.
We might rebuke a Catholic priest for being called “Father” and at the same time have framed certificates of earned college and seminary degrees hanging in our offices as testimony to our right to be called “teacher.”
We will cross land and sea to start a church in the darkest jungles of foreign lands but wouldn’t cross town to cooperate in fellowship with a (pick one) Calvinist/Arminian SBC pastor.
And many more examples are available.
Basically, we ignore the good things about Pharisees and adopt their practices in contradiction to what Jesus taught in Matthew 23.
I guess I’m not going to convince you, Debbie. Fine.
But my point is that yes, Southern Baptists of the last 20 years have had Pharisaical tendencies. So did the Southern Baptists of the 150 years before that. Conservatives have some of these tendencies. So do moderates and liberals. Democrats. Republicans. And so do you and so do I.
It is petty to try to paint those you argue against as Pharisees. Our job is to look within, not to use this passage to justify ourselves and bash others.
Let me say it this way. I spent a lot of time arguing against the BI group. I thought their interpretations of scriptures lacked biblical weight.
I could go into scriptures and say “here is where I think you are wrong in your interpretation of scriptures” or I could use the reductio ad Phariseeum argument. “You are conservative like the Pharisees – so there!”
It is lazy argument.
I’m saying we ALL have Pharisaical tendencies we must fight against. We should deal with those and not just try to paint our theological opponents in that negative light.
My chief quarrel, frankly, is with those who arrogantly rewrite this passage as if it primarily is addressed against the CR and those who lead the SBC.
We will cross land and sea to start a church in the darkest jungles of foreign lands but wouldn’t cross town to cooperate in fellowship with a (pick one) Calvinist/Arminian SBC pastor.
Or logon and actually learn from a Yankees fan….
Nah, I can’t go that far.
Doug
Debbie, sorry to drop out of the discussion last night, but I was misreading your statements, probably misreading your intentions, and didn’t want to go down that road.
Doug
Great post Dave. If I may be inclined to speak to Debbie by Scripture:
“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?” -Romans 2:1-4 ESV.
I think the key to it all is humility – the willingness to be corrected when we stand to correct – the removal of our “beam” before we remove the “splinter” in the other. To use fallacious attacks against others in such a way has been a problem with me. A few years back I brought up Godwin’s law on that same blog and was ridiculed for it.
Rob
Rob,
That’s because you were caught by Quirk’s Exception: “Intentional invocation of this so-called “Nazi Clause” is ineffectual.”
Only moderators can declare, “Godwin has been invoked!” and draw the discussion thread to a close. Too few actually do it, though.
rick
I didn’t realize there was a set of rules, Rick. But, on the other hand, Rob is one of the “charter members” of sbcIMPACT. So he is a moderator and thus can invoke Godwin’s law.
Of course, I don’t really understand the process, but…
Rob and Dave: I can certainly agree with your last comments. But and this is a big but. Leaders are also held to a higher standard than even I am. So when the prophets warned leaders, do you think that they were not to do so because according to the to of you, they could be guilty of it themselves? Was Paul even though he warned against false prophets? Scripture interprets scripture so that can’t be the whole meaning. It’s not exactly a compliment when someone says of you, listen to their message but don’t follow what they do. By definition that is a hypocrite. Which Pharisees were and Christ made clear that point. Rob: The passages you are quoting are again I believe being taken out of Context. Who was Paul speaking about in Romans 2? He could be speaking to the Gentiles who appeared virtuous and took it on themselves to condemn others, or it could be to the Jews who despised and condemned the Gentiles, who they always thought were lower than themselves. It is not however written to Christians who have legitimate insight and are correct, as Paul was, in correcting and naming things wrong in the church. We are to do that. Context is everything.
But I do agree that we also need to self examine and make sure our motives are pure, on as in the case of Long and Ted that we aren’t preaching hard on things that we are secretly guilty of ourselves.
One thing no one has admitted, yet documentation proves to be true, there were many, many innocents destroyed during the CR. It was wrong. The methods used were wrong. If we don’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat it and have in the five years I’ve been on the scene. Southern Baptists and the Convention sinned and have yet to admit or repent from it. That’s serious. We can’t move on till we do. The poster you mention has some good points along with those not true or relevant(which I think are few in number) and we need to own those points. Pride says not to. Pride is sin.
Again reading all of Chapter 2 gives the correct context. Sorry to take up so much space, but I believe this discussion to be important. I guess I have a lot to say on it.
To be honest with you, Dave, I don’t know why people so readily resort to Reductio ad Hitlerum when there are so many better fallacies available to them. This is what makes them truly lazy. Here are some of my favorites:
Hasty generalization where one moves from a specific case to all members of that class: “He was a Calvinist and used predestination as an excuse for not witnessing. We know that Calvinists are anti-evangelistic.”
The post hoc fallacy is where correlation is mistaken for causation, “Ever since the Conservative Resurgence baptism numbers have been on a steady decline so it is all these wild-eyed fundamentalists that are bringing the SBC down.”
A variation of this is the slippery slope argument justifying why Baptists don’t dance – because it inevitably and irrevocably leads to illicit sexual activity. When I was in Christian school, we always countered this particular fallacy when we heard in chapel messages by saying, “Beer leads to heroin.”
Ad hominem and tu quoque arguments are some of my favorites because they go right back to elementary playground. The first is “Of course you think that way because you’re a ________________,” followed by the tu quoque of, “Takes one to know one!” rejoinder. The biggest shortcoming of the internet is that people can’t stick their tongues out at one another as the ultimate display of infantility in these arguments.
Other arguments include the semantic fallacy which conflates a word’s etymology with its actual usage and real meaning. This is VERY common to theological arguments, usually goes undetected, and is often hard to disprove. Landmarkers base an entire doctrinal position on this fallacy related to ekklesia.
And, as we have seen in this thread, the Invincible ignorance fallacy where a person simply refuses to believe an argument, ignoring any evidence given. It isn’t so much a fallacy as it is an obdurate attestation of one’s own assertions without feeling compelled to support them, and conversely rebuts with mere contradictions rather than reasoned propositions. Sort of like this Monty Python classic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
Debbie,
I think you are reading meaning into what I am trying to say.
Yes, we who lead/teach are called to a higher standard.
Yes, there is biblical precedent to call leaders/teachers into account for wrong things they do or say.
Obviously, Jesus confronted the Pharisees themselves.
My point is that it is lazy argument to simply smear our blogging opponents as Pharisees. I think it is the height of hubris to take Jesus’ words and REWRITE them in the first place. But to do so to direct those words at others is both hubris and sloth. Rather than deal with the argument of the other, I simply smear him as a Nazi or a Pharisee or a liberal or whatever.
This kind of labeling is not only lazy logic but it imbues human opinions with a divine authority.
Let me go back to the BI argument. I spent a lot of time arguing with Wes, Tim, Robin, et al about their views of ecclesiology and such. I disagreed with their approach. I shared my opinions, they shared theirs.
But if I rewrote the Bible to fit my agenda, I would have taken Matthew 23 and exchanged Pharisees for “BI Adherents.” Easy to do. But did Jesus have the BI guys in view when he spoke those words? I am taking the words of Jesus and twisting them for my own purposes. I think that is just wrong.
I’ve got a lot of real work to do before Bible Study and Deacons’ Meeting tonight, so it will be late before I respond any more here.
Play nice.
Wow, Rick.
“Hasty generalization”
“post hoc fallacy”
“slippery slope argument”
“Ad hominem”
“tu quoque arguments”
“semantic fallacy”
“Invincible ignorance fallacy”
You got a lot into one comment.
I have one invincible, infallible, irreproachable argument against all that.
“I’m rubber and you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.”
Unassailable indeed!
In seriousness, though, I ran into a refutation of the ad Hitlerum/ad Nazium argument and that was just simple, unvarnished, contradiction:
“That is NOTHING like Naziism. That has nothing in common with Naziism. That is nowhere close to Naziism, not even in the same ball game, let alone in the same league. How can you possibly make that sort of comparison? What? The Nazis thought the sky was blue and you think the sky is blue, so now you’re a Nazi too? Seems fair, doesn’t it? NO. There is NOTHING like Nazis. Even swastika-wearing skinheads who quote national socialist white-supremacy anti-semitic claptrap are NOTHING like Nazis because they are only pretenders, poseurs, wannabes, all dressed up like PRETEND Nazis just to get attention. So no, this is not like the Nazis at all.”
It’s probably impolitic to follow that with “Idiot” or “Twit.”
Along the lines of what Rick was saying (though it is a bit off topic – but nevertheless is important)…
No one and I mean no one is like the Nazis (unless one counts Stalin and Mao among their cutthroat kindred). One only needs to google “White Rose” and look at what real Nazis did to mere dissenters who wrote pamphlets against Hitler. And to think that “Christians” would compare imperfect Christians to such monsters!
I wrote a post on my old blog about this topic in response to “the blogger we will not name” and both the moderator and many of his “yes” people who would compare Nazis and Pharisees to imperfect yet forgiven Christians. I posted back and forth with one poster who just did not get that the comparison was inappropiate.
Thanks Rick. I forgot about Quirk’s Exception. The moderator had none of my exception – however once I mentioned Godwin’s Law, discussion on that thread dried up. In fact, I think your quote above was from Godwin himself (a quote I used as well).
Here is my addition: “When you protest against Nazis, they don’t make life uncomfortable – they don’t hose you water, break up protests with tear gas or jail. You don’t just lose your job and have to move away from the neighborhood. They don’t just destroy your reputations, or just take your money. You see, real Nazis did not do all of this – THEY JUST KILLED YOU. You did not wake up in the morning to see another day around loved ones to make a fresh beginning. THEY KILLED YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. They harbored no dissent away from their uptopian vision. Anybody so depraved that would start a war and send off a few million citizens to concentration camps who would then strip them of all valuables and gas them to death would not think one wit of dealing with mere dissenters in a cruel and sadistic way. And people want to compare these monsters to Christians? Is there any decency and Christian decorum left on the blogosphere?”
Rob
If you try hard enough you can too stick out your tongue in a blog:
s\O
ss__;s|–,
ssisss|–’
s/O
It’s harder to do but looks a stupid here as in RL =D
Gosh, I thought Nazis were being seen by Doug Coe as role models for the new Christian right.
Where did I get that idea? And did I ‘misunderstand’ what Doug Coe was saying? (Doug Coe is associated with a group that insiders call the ‘the Family’, the same group that organizes the National Prayer Breakfasts.)
Jeff Sharlet has written about this and comments, “Doug Coe in one presentation talked about Nazi Germany and the allegiance many Germans had to the Nazis. He said it was something of a role model for the approach that Family members need to have to their organization.
David Coe, a former assistant to George W. Bush at the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, told NBC Nightly News last year that Doug Coe’s references to Nazis in his sermons were really a metaphor, a metaphor for commitment.”
So back off comparing to the ‘Nazi’s’ as a negative, ’cause one of the most powerful and influential right-wing Christians does it in a positive way. So the logic is that makes it ‘okay’ to follow Doug Coe’s example. Doug Coe is ‘one of us’, isn’t he ????
UNLESS . . . we decide that there is something about the Nazis that cancels out any possibility that they could ever be considered role models for Christian people. Something very, very evil. Naaah . . .
That’s just silly liberal talk.
Who is Doug Cole? What do I care?
I have heard more liberals accuse Nazis to conservatives than vice versa. Something that needs to be remembered is this: while libs want to say that Nazis are kin to the right wing, that is not the truth. Nazis are right of say communists, but as far as the spectrum goes they are far left than conservatives. The Soviet Communists hated the Nazis for their wanting power and not going far enough – the dirty little secret is this: the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialismus) refers to “National Socialism” i.e. Socialists – right of the communists, left of everybody else. Hitler liked the idea of balance between capitalism and socialism: Big Banks and Big Companies with everything else controlled by government.
Rob
Somehow, I’m having trouble connecting someone that was a spiritual advisor to Hillary Clinton and President Carter with the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC, given that she’s a Methodist and he left the SBC over the Conservative Resurgence.
Or am I missing some better evidence of connection?
I have no idea what you are trying to say, Christiane.
Doug Cole has been a spiritual mentor to Democrats and Republicans alike.
It seems that you are trying to use some kind of smear against conservatives, but honestly, I’m just not understanding it. Maybe you could clarify.
I love the article and enjoyed the discourse. Awesome. Thanks Dave. You do have to hand one thing to the Nazi’s as Christiane pointed out, they were masters of organization.
David—
What a great set of observations!!! I am in more agreement with you on your observations than anything I have read so far in my participation. THANKS for the wise honesty!!!!
This is particularly important in the face of the last month before we go to the polls and vote. I have noted for the last 20 years that when a candidate has no concrete programs to present and has no real logical argument which makes more sense than his opponent—he ALWAYS starts calling names.
This seems to be more a problem for Republicans than Democrats. You should see the signs cluttering our roadsides in Beaufort County (NC). “Support the Constitution / Eliminate Obamacare / Promote Jobs / Support Small Busines / ad nauseum!!!” Not one says what program I have to get the economy rolling again.
I have written both our Senators (Burr [R], Hagan [D]) on their official website. Burr has a fine lady coordinating his efforts in Nash County and I have visited personally with her. You would think I might get a personal response—NOT!! My letters were along the lines that I am a small business owner making 30% or what I did 3 years ago. I heard clearly from both my father and grandfather how FDR began to bring us out of the Depression. It was by paying the farmer NOT TO RAISE A CROP since the markets were overloaded with, mostly, cotton. That was a bailout to the little guy over Corporate America.
What happened within a month was the farmer paid his debts to the local merchants / they paid their suppliers and ordered more goods / the suppliers called back their workers to produce those goods / that single dollar from the government check flowed through the entire system and we made instant progress back toward a flowing-money-basis of a good and healthy economy.
The Congress quit fighting a never-ending battle over who was right and got behind an Administration with good concrete ideas which worked. The Hoover Dam and others like it / many state and federal parks / highway projects / rural electrification also added to the quality of American life.
Sadly, it took WWII to really jerk things back: multitudes of men enlisted and drew military pay / war goods flowed to England on the Lend/Lease Program / eventually we invaded Europe and Japan with a high cost of lives lost on all sides. Women could always get a job at an assembly line. That is a terrible way to lower the population and certainly had nothing to do with Jesus’ way of forgiving enemies and turning the other cheek. I hasten to say that in my opinion it was necessary–BUT awful.
What if all that money and manpower had been spent in sending loving and caring missionaries?–oops, I forgot the Germans were super Christians as well and so “Christian” they were looking the other way as Jews / Gypsies / homosexuals were sent to death camps. Here we had 2 ways of “being Christian.”
We had no problems calling Japanese “japs / yellow dogs / dirty rotten scandrels for bombing Pearl Harbor in a “sneaky” raid. They even got sent to our own Concentration Camps here (the Nazi in us). We just didn’t exterminate them, but many Americans advocated such! We put the A-bomb on them with smiles on faces–despite many scientists protesting that a demonstration nearby would not take all the lives instantly destroyed in Nagisaki and Heroshima.
I remember a Japanese-American girl in my first grade group whose abusers drew a swift rebuke from the teacher because one of my “good old boy” classmates called her a “Jap.” Boy, did he ever regret that lose word passing his lips! It was my first exposure to undeserved hate from a red neck idiot. Nothing got said about blacks in suburban Atlanta.
The real question is: “If it looks like a duck / quacks like a duck / walks like a duck—it could be a duck!”
Is it possible we have some ducks acting too much like Pharisees to the point they are definitely—ducks?
I think it is possible that reducto ad Pharisee / Nazi is a valid and true observation—if the individual is so much so it can’t be denied. Rather than not use the term, you are wise to observe that we “each have a hidden Pharisee/Nazi in us–we should avoid and control that side of human personality.”
I am so totally in agreement with you on this, that I give you–not just applause, but STANDING APPLAUSE!
Thanks for that most wise observation. We should all join you in this, in my opinion.
WELL SAID!!!!!
Hi DAVID,
You wrote:
“I have no idea what you are trying to say, Christiane.
Doug Cole has been a spiritual mentor to Democrats and Republicans alike.
It seems that you are trying to use some kind of smear against conservatives, but honestly, I’m just not understanding it. Maybe you could clarify.”
Perhaps this will help and I must tell you it scares the hell out of me, and I am not one to say something like that lightly. And I am not one to ‘smear’ someone, David. Take a look for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYeGR7O1lKI
Wow, the secularist liberal press does not like a conservative religious leader. That’s a shocker.
You might try not simply accepting the words of a critic about another. Perhaps there is an agenda in those who criticize him.
Hi ROB AYERS,
You wrote: ‘Who is Doug Cole? What do I care?”
Meet Doug Coe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYeGR7O1lKI
In the light of the teachings of someone like Doug Coe, as shown in the video, I do not understand this post, or many of the comments here.
Well, I should have learned from the example of another ‘religious leader’ recently. He riled against Islam, he portrayed himself as an ‘expert’, and for nine-years, he lied. Excuse me, we are supposed to say he ‘mis-spoke’.
And when he was caught out on video tape, doing his act, he was declared ‘exonerated’ . . . go figure ’cause I cannot make sense of it, especially coming from Christians.
And then Doug Coe doing his thing on video is shown by a television station other than FOX, and it’s the television station that is the problem,
and Doug Coe gets a pass. Even though he is doing the speaking on film. ?
????????????????????????????????? Please, people. Don’t make it too crazy. It doesn’t get much stranger than this.
Christiane, should I believe everything that Sean Hannity says about Obama?
What does Doug Cole have to do with Ergun Caner?
You seem a little desperate on this one. I’m guessing that your political/theological biases are showing through a little on this one. You jump to believe those who slam a conservative religious leader and paint him in a negative light.
Not real fair, is it?
Christiane, calm down, take a deep breath. And lets stick to the topic of discussion, which is Matthew 23 and the tendency to paint people as Pharisees unnecessarily.
Yes, I am very upset.
I cannot get over what happened to the Cranich family.
This would not have happened in the America I grew up in.
Thanks for the kindly reminder. Have a great week-end.
I’m not sure which progressive Baptist Blogger Rev Miller is referencing in his discussion starter above; but for instance I would not call Robert Parham’s reservations about the Manhattan Declaration a year ago where he talks about passages in Matthew; would not call this modified Jeremiad to SBC Conservative leaders Hate Speech:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/robert_parham/2009/11/christian_right_issues_new_declaration–same_old_agenda.html
Right you are, Steven. In today’s era of political correctness, this could hardly be considered “hate speech.”
“Talk about mendacity. Many of these signatories are the spiritual heirs of the Christian slaveholders. They are the ones who opposed the civil rights movement, abandoned public schools for private Christian schools, demonized government funding for the poor and disadvantaged. They are the ones who said AIDS was a gay disease and refused to address the issue for 20 years. As for the rights and equality of women, for heaven’s sake, the Southern Baptist signatories believe women should be homemakers, helpmates to their husbands who are the breadwinners. Southern Baptist fundamentalists believe women are unworthy of ordination.”
Unless of course, such vitriol was dripping from a conservative pen regarding their opponents. The only thing Parham forgot to mention were the white robes, pointed hats, and burning crosses. If this isn’t loathsome hate speech against fellow Christians, then I don’t know what it would look like.
“The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.”
Flannery O’Connor
In 2006 Valerie Tarico, PhD (psychology), graduate of Wheaton College, wrote a book entitled “The Dark Side–How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth.”
She came from a mid-west conservative fundamentalist upbringing. She found out later as she got an education that what was pumped into her at home growing up had a danger element.
In the preface to her book she says the following:
Except in churches and religious forums, the geeral consensus in our pluralistic society during the latter part of the 20th century was to keep private faith out of social conversation and public debate. Since the year 2000, something has changed. Religious beliefs and moral values are now discussed in every form of mass media. They have become topics of conversation among even casual acquaintances. George Bush and the religious right, for better or worse, have reopened a conversation in America, a conversation about the meaning of faith and morality and Christianity. This conversation has been driven by Evangelicals, and consequently, much of the debat has been about Evangelicalism itself.
. . .In November 2004, the religious right claimed credit for putting George Bush back in office and demanded payback in the form of laws that advanced a conservative social agenda: funding for faith-based social services, restrictions on reproductive education and contraception, bans on civil unions for gays, and changes in science curricula to make room for the biblical creation story. The media sat up and took notice. Articles began cropping up in mainstream press about dominionism: the belief that Christians have a moral responsibility to run the country, and ultimately the world, according to biblically derived principles of governance.
Recetly I had lunch with a small group of people who are trying to build public policies that protect the poor, the ill, and children: those whom Jesus called “the least of these.” During the conversation, one person, a young attorney, announced that he was Evangelical, adding for emphasis that he prayed to Jesus every day. No one else had announced his or her spiritual beliefs, and yet nobody flinched at the proclaimation or thought it off topic…
Why could the young attorney make his announcement, confident that it would be well received? For two reasons: First, although he may not have been among other Evangelicals, in virtually any gathering in the US it is safe to assume that the majority of people present are people of faith. Second, thanks to the prominent role of
Evangelicals in the press and public life, non-Evangelicals are increasingly aware of the growth in Evangelical religion and are axious to understand how this growth may affect their own communities, deeply held values, and spiritutal priorities.
. . .In U.S. census data, less than one half of one percent self identify as atheist, and another five percent or so call themselves agnostic. About eithty-five percent call themselves born again or Evangelical. A secular assault on religion? Politicians know better. They accuse their opponents of shunning faith and religious values preciesly because potential constituents across the political spectrum and virtually all people of faith in one form or another.
. .The change that has occurred in recent decades has been primarily a shift within Christianity itself. For over thirty years, while enrollment in mainline Protestant churches has been declining, Evangelicalism has been quietly gaining ground, offering a very clear set of core beliefs and behavioral rules to those who otherwise might hold more convoluted or vague forms of faith….As raditional communities have fragmented, Evangelicals have built communitites centered around churches that offer not only meaning but also friendship, counseling, legal advice, leisure activities, and mutual aid.
These benefits come with conditions attached. They are offered only to believers or prospective believers of a very specific sort…They see themselves as a people apart…Evangelicals often see themselves as an embattled minority. And because many don’t believe that other Christians are Christians, they see Christianity per se as an embattled minority religion.
. . .In the past, when political power has accrued to any Christian orthodoxy that demands exclusive allegiance, the result has often been dangerous for both outsiders to the faith and Christians who don’t hold the dominant view. Is such an environment in the making?
This book is available from Dea Press(www.spaces.msn.com/awaypoint/). I highly recomment you consider giving it a read for some important insights to how too much religion can be dangerous to social and personal mental health.
I see her comments as coming from one who should be solidly a part of CR. However, because she grew up in such an environment and saw its horrors for her, she can’t help but ask serious questions. She has a thorough knowledge of human personality and mental illness or imbalance. It is dangerous to be too obsessed with Evangelical teaching which corrupt love and truth is her basic message!
Christiane,
Please tell me what was the “truth” in that paragraph? I can’t seem to find any of it.
Just one tiny example: “They are the ones who said AIDS was a gay disease and refused to address the issue for 20 years.” The implication being that it is NOT a gay disease.
This flies in the face of the CDC. From, http://www.healthjackal.com/conditions/2010/09/26/us-hiv-infections-on-the-rise-in-gay-men/ we read: “According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite this early leadership, “…gay, bisexual, and other MSM (males having sex with males) of all races remain the population most severely affected by HIV.” In fact, “MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections have been increasing since the early 1990s.””
To ask it another way, what is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity among the gay population versus the general population? Is it heart disease, diabetes, cancer? Or is it complications resulting from HIV/AIDS?
You will also find cities in the north far more segregated than the south. Compare Detroit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4982034696/in/set-72157624812674967/ with Atlanta: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4981400669/in/set-72157624812674967/ Where do we see more clearly demarcated racial segregation? It isn’t the south.
As for women, this is clearly a position that you cannot find listed in a single SBC publication that I know of. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t recall seeing a single complementarian author ever attributing his position to how “unworthy” women are for ordination.
The truth? If it were there, I sure missed it.
David–
I have read this discussion from top to bottom. I don’t understand what “BI” is.
Could you fill me in? Code talk is one of the ways we avoid clear discussion.
I am also amazed the your analysis is getting severe criticism.
It seems things which are meant to put a period on debate end up with a “bring it on” incite to a riot!
Hang in there, brother, you started this with a well-rounded description of the “Pharisee in each of us.”
Bi stands for Baptist Identity – a group that emphasizes our “identity” as Baptists more than many of us do. They generally have a few Landmark-like tendencies, but are not Landmarkers.
They believe that the key to renewal is to reemphasize Baptist doctrine and practice.
SBC Today (when it was operating) was the Blogging headquarters for BI. Bart Barber probably qualified as BI as well. The theologian of the BI movement is Malcolm Yarnell and Southwestern seminary.
Christiane,
True, neither does the truth change to suit the whims of a changing culture. The gospel is the gospel and the truth is the truth and the Word is the Word.
“Baptist Identity”—that is interesting!
I did not read it at the time and have no knowledge of what it really entails.
As a 1946 born Baptist I personally know what “Baptist” means:
(1) Autonomy = no other church nor the Association or Deomination dictates to the local church what it will be or do.
(2) Cooperative Program = we band together to support missionaries so that they do not have to spend 4 years raising funds to spend 1 year in the mission field.
(3) We give–in trust–that our giving will be used primarily for support of Missionaries and not the Administrators who coordinate their efforts.
(4) We can trust our elected leaders to carry out our wishes that the Gospel message might be carried to the world as the Great Commission directs (Matthew 28:19-20)
(5) That Bold Mission Thrust would use satellite technology through Baptist TelNet to share the Gospel message with every person on this earth who has a satellite receiver. That one got totally crushed with the CR fight. In my mind Satan won and we lost a golden opportunity. Now Pat Robertson owns the satellite!
Outside of that I fail to see how Baptist Identity is anything more than a redaction (re-writing) of our great heritage of Autonomy and Mission giving.
What was a practical reason for binding together has been turned into a constant course of criticism of “who is ‘liberal’ and who is ‘conservative.’”
Frankly, I don’t find much consolation in any arguement that we have been restored to our “right way of being Baptist.” Now the Calvinist theory simply adds to the confusion.
My ultimate observation is that “God doesn’t bless a mess.” Since 1979 it is hard for me to detect much more than a mess of argument / criticism / false accusation / a few mega church pastors trying to run the whole show without, themselves, giving as much as 10% of the total budget to missions.
Rick, your comment above got tangled in moderation until I saw it. If you have two links in one comment, it automatically goes into moderation until we find it and bring it out. Sorry.
A comment that a) makes any point at all and b) makes a point germane to the discussion may have a chance to remain, Steve.
Pharisee in each of us also mirrors The Great Fleming Rutledge Magisterial Proclamation behind the Sacred Desk about The Axis of Evil; That it is here and there and Everywhere. It Runs through Each and everyone of us.
I heard her in person in one of the Most Blueblood Episcopalian Congregations in Birmingham Alabama a few years ago. They were shocked and awwed just like me.
She preached same Sermon in Duke Chapel and it is part of Willimon’s collection of Sermon from that chapel in hardbound copy if any of you are interested in Great Preaching.
Steve,
Make a point.
David–
I’m seeing some wider moderation outside what you have spelled out as your guidelines;
A reminder of what you clearly stated:
1) Comment on the topic
2) I don’t want comments that have no purpose but to insult another person.
3) When someone consistently crosses the line and generally drags the comment line down, they will be put into moderation.
4) I also have the capability of banning someone permanently.
5) First time commenters are automatically moderated. Once I approve their comment, they have free access thereafter.
Comments with two or more links are automatically moderated.
We want lively and free conversation. We do not want a free-for-all of personal attacks and insults.
I think these guidelines are both fair and enforcable. I commend you for taking this stand and trust your sense of fairness. Would it be wise to post them on any place where commentary is to be made???
Let me be clear about my welcome to these blogs. It is not hard to figure I’m not in the cheerleading section for what has become of the SBC. However, I am not one to be critical without cause. I try to be constructive in my criticism and cite any cases which are pertinent over my 64 years of being Southern Baptist.
My momma was faithful in her attendence even when pregnant with her first child sired by my SBC-faithful father, Claude Scarborough. Assuming children in the womb can hear, I guess you could say I was listening to sermons and music before I saw the light of day!!
I would like to see the SBC overcome its time of plateaued growth and giving. I think such could be accomplished with a return to Autonomy and true mission giving focused on putting new missionaries in the home and foreign fields. I hope we have arrived at a “teachable moment” in SBC history.
Again, thanks for you spirit of kindness and welcome. I will covenent to pray for you and the others who provide this opportunity of honest expression. I would hope for the same in return.
We are Brothers in Christ as long as we proclaim him as our Saviour and Lord. We just need to be followers of whom He can be proud–rather than failed disciples fussing and fighting over who will lead and who will follow.
Gene, for the record, the comment guidelines you mentioned do not apply here, but at SBC Voices. They are two separate websites.
Hi RICK PRESLEY,
“Please tell me what was the “truth” in that paragraph?”
What ‘paragraph’ are you referring to, please?
Christiane,
Since your comment followed my quoting from the Parham link that Stephen posted (yes, I do follow them and often actually read them), I surmised that it was related to the paragraph I had quoted. Forgive me if I misinterpreted what you wrote to apply to my critique of the article.
The paragraph in question is this one which I will paste in at the risk of being tedious since it is also in comment #45:
“Talk about mendacity. Many of these signatories are the spiritual heirs of the Christian slaveholders. They are the ones who opposed the civil rights movement, abandoned public schools for private Christian schools, demonized government funding for the poor and disadvantaged. They are the ones who said AIDS was a gay disease and refused to address the issue for 20 years. As for the rights and equality of women, for heaven’s sake, the Southern Baptist signatories believe women should be homemakers, helpmates to their husbands who are the breadwinners. Southern Baptist fundamentalists believe women are unworthy of ordination.”
I’m not sure what’s getting moderated. The link is still there in comment 44.
Hi RICK PRESLEY,
thank you for responding . . . actually I did not intend for that quote to be applied specifically to that particular paragraph, so I am glad I asked about it and that you responded in kind.
David–
I understand how the 2 websites differ.
Your guideline are so clear and fair I would like to see them form a moderation rationale on all sites.
Although we see thing differently, I appreciate the way in which you let me post. I will attempt not to be ill-tempered or caustic. However, if I have observed things not worthy of Christ-like following, I will talk about it and clearly say “why.”
I always try to assume a Prophetic Ministry–meaning an attempt to bring about reconciliation in the here and now as opposed to just “predicting the future.” E. Clinton Gardner of Emory University’s Candler School of Theology wrote a fine book in the 60′s along these lines entitled (I think) “Prophetic Minitry.”
None of us is perfect. I am the first to say that pre-1979 things were not always fair. My own father suffered a blocking of his abilities to serve large churches because he graduated Andover-Newton rather than Southern in the 1940′s.
He felt the personal sting of favoritism in the SBC. His attitude was that of a great man. He said, “IF they draw a circle and cut me out, I will just draw a bigger one and include them.”
What a model for me and all the rest of us in these days of exclusion!! Daddy was the most Christ-like man I have ever known. I saw him in the pulpit and I saw him at home. In all situations he was the same dedicated Christian practicing what he preached—in spades!!!
I was blessed, as I hope you are, by a model father following Christ.
Stephen–
You may be a little too cynical on this one. I was able to post my impressions of SEBTS 1967-70 on the other blog.
Of course, it doesn’t agree with cb Scott, but what the heck!
On this I was treated fairly–therefore, I honestly commend David for his fairness.
We all don’t get our way when we want it, but a fair Moderator will let enough stuff in to make our point that all is not perfect in the SBC these days.
Just be cool, calm, and collected and minimize the links!!!
Whatever criticism you give—make it constructive rather than destructive and they will give you a fair opportunity to speak you peace!