Enjoyed this interview of Camille Paglia by @clairlemon. I've long appreciated Paglia's insight and wit. Money quote from Paglia: "As an atheist, I have argued that if religion is erased, something must be put in its place." quillette.com/2018/11/10/cam…
In the same question from @clairelemon, Paglia argues that "secular humanism has failed." The fascinating thing to someone like myself (clergy/semi-academic) is the thought that any form of humanism ever *could* replace religion.
Western culture is so formed by Judeo-Christian ethics and sensibilities that it literally could not imagine a way of being in the world the wouldn't import copious amounts of Christian assumptions. Simply put: humanism doesn't have the inherent goods to create such a framework.
Personally, I think Paglia intuitively knows this. She is brilliant, erudite, creative. Yet she offers no constructive vision of the future that can offer a framework for belief. Why? Because she knows: Humans require transcendence in order to create existential frameworks.
Translation: You may not like or believe in God, but it is the concept of a transcendent that creates the framework for ethics and morality--in all human civilizations. When those frameworks are removed? Collapse comes soon thereafter.
Humans need a point of reference for the ordering and aiming of life. And they need this point of reference to be beyond themselves, per Augustine. I would love to see Paglia engage the Christian tradition, eschew deconstructionism, and see what sort of good might be made.
In other words, I think Paglia's assertion that secular humanism has failed is--in itself--the greatest argument against her being an atheist. Admit secularism doesn't work, embrace theism, and create a framework from that point instead of continuing with a fruitless approach.
The future of Western civilization is more likely to be found in the approach imagined by the likes of Radical Orthodoxy (Milbank, Pickstock, Ward, etc.) than it is any framework willed into existence by those who have no vision of transcendence.
These are the sorts of Saturday night tweets you get when I am forced to quarantine away from my family. Apologies. Or you're welcome. Depending on who you are.
Translation: You may not like or believe in God, but it is the concept of a transcendent that creates the framework for ethics and morality--in all human civilizations. When those frameworks are removed? Collapse comes soon thereafter.
Humans need a point of reference for the ordering and aiming of life. And they need this point of reference to be beyond themselves, per Augustine. I would love to see Paglia engage the Christian tradition, eschew deconstructionism, and see what sort of good might be made.
In other words, I think Paglia's assertion that secular humanism has failed is--in itself--the greatest argument against her being an atheist. Admit secularism doesn't work, embrace theism, and create a framework from that point instead of continuing with a fruitless approach.
The future of Western civilization is more likely to be found in the approach imagined by the likes of Radical Orthodoxy (Milbank, Pickstock, Ward, etc.) than it is any framework willed into existence by those who have no vision of transcendence.
These are the sorts of Saturday night tweets you get when I am forced to quarantine away from my family. Apologies. Or you're welcome. Depending on who you are.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨 SBC Insider Baseball Tweet Thread Alert. 🚨 I made this somewhat cheeky tweet in hopes to demonstrate what I perceive to be hermeneutical inconsistencies and some confusion re: the proposed Law Amendment. I saw a few questions in response, so wanted to follow up and clarify.
First, my original tweet. I was attempting to point out how many of those who want to read the role of females in the NT church as “crystal clear” will simultaneously ignore other seemingly “crystal clear” commands or apply a cultural hermeneutic to them. For example…
Romans 16:16 says, “Greet one another with a holy kiss.” This is common in some church cultures, but not in the United States, because it doesn’t translate into our culture. We usually shake hands or hug. But I don’t see lots of folks leading a “holy kiss” movement in the SBC.
I don’t talk a ton about my health on the socials, but I’m texting with a longtime friend who is up against it right now in the battle with cancer, and I wanted to share a couple of quick things.
For the uninitiated: I have heart failure and should’ve died in 2003. 🧵Thread:
For all my passion about living the Kingdom here and now, my source of hope is that one day the dead in Christ will rise and Jesus will bring about the death of death. Some days it's the only thing that keeps me going.
If you’re disease-ridden:
We hope in the Resurrection.
When this life feels like too much, I go to the following places in my Bible:
Two days ago news broke of an amicus brief filed in which the SBC, SBTS, and Lifeway were all third parties. The suit attempts to prevent the statute of limitations being lifted in cases of sexual abuse. I waited a beat before speaking to ascertain facts and await explanation.
As best I can tell, the EC acted unilaterally w/o trustee approval. The trustees were voted on by messengers and messengers have consistently and nearly unanimously voted in favor of sexual abuse reforms since @RobertDownen_’s @HoustonChron story in 2019. houstonchronicle.com/news/investiga…
The EC opposing this lawsuit unilaterally without consulting trustees is bad on a number of levels. I understand EC leadership must make decisions w/o trustee approval from time to time, but this topic has been at the forefront of discussion and reeks of self-preservation.
He told me about a church planter in his city who destroyed his church through a series of character issues (not moral failings, to be clear) and then was immediately hired by a megachurch in his city.
He said: “Is he an amazing speaker? Yeah. Will the church grow? Probably.”
He continued: “But I’m worried about who will be hurt as a result. And I’m worried that no one will care.”
This is one conversation with one friend. Anecdotal and all that jazz.
At the same time, he hit on some things I’ve been thinking about.
When I was trained as a pastor, there was little talk about emotional health and character. I think it was assumed.
At the same time, I saw “seminary smugness” come over many of us.
🧵 I’ve been waiting for @Saddleback to release an explanation of their position before saying much regarding the recent dust up on whether or not they are in friendly cooperation with the SBC. Bottom line: I’ll vote for their reinstatement. Here’s why:
1. Saddleback’s position may not be “hard” complementarianism, but it falls within what many other churches in the SBC do in practice: an all-male elder board gives ministry oversight to the work of the church. Stacie operating as @BethMooreLPM used to say: “under authority.”
2. Unless I am mistaken, the SBC has not regularly disfellowshipped churches who have women with the word “pastor” in their job titles, *unless* that person serves as the senior/lead pastor. Andy is clearly the lead pastor.