Justin Taylor's Blog, page 116

The OOOOOPSI Model of American Media Outrage Coverage

Do people still use bookmarks in their browser? If so, bookmark this one from Jon Swerens:

Opportunity: First, we need a hot-button event that is a proper catalyst for the cycle. Recent examples were supplied by Chick-fil-A, Hobby Lobby, Susan G. Komen, and now, Arizona’s proposed law.
Outrage: Next, those on the opposite side of the culture wars make a lot of noise about “fairness” and “bigotry” and “tolerance.” Maybe they have a point, or maybe not, but it’s an important step in the news cycle.
Opposition: Then, the national media by and large adopts the definitions brought to them by the outraged. For example, in this week’s Arizona story, the media labeled the bill “anti-gay,” without the scare quotes. Such labeling was a tremendous victory for the outraged.
Oversimplification: As a part of its coverage, the media fails to add any nuance to the debate or closely examine the actual facts of what’s being argued, preferring to cover the horse race of two competing interests beating each other up.
Overreach: At some point, a mainline media outlet gets too cocky and goes a step too far in its boosterism. Other media momentarily shrink back in embarrassment.
Pendulum: Prompted by this misstep, a few media commentators rub their chins and publish thoughtful analysis pieces that ask if everyone is being a little too hard on the accused. The accused is still wrong, mind you, but we can be nicer about it.
Silence: After this, coverage ceases as the nation’s attention runs elsewhere.
Introspection: Finally, months later, on a Sunday news program, journalists will gather and ruminate about how they unfairly overstated one side of the debate. They pledge to do better next time.

Rinse and repeat.

HT: Mollie Hemingway

 

The Prophetic John Stott

John Stott, writing over 30 years ago (in 1982):

It is difficult to imagine the world in the year A.D. 2000, by which time versatile micro-processors are likely to be as common as simple calculators are today.

We should certainly welcome the fact that the silicon chip will transcend human brain-power, as the machine has transcended human muscle-power.

Much less welcome will be the probable reduction of human contact as the new electronic network renders personal relationships ever less necessary.

In such a dehumanized society the fellowship of the local church will become increasingly important, whose members meet one another, and talk and listen to one another in person rather than on screen.

In this human context of mutual love the speaking and hearing of the Word of God is also likely to become more necessary for the preservation of our humanness, not less.

—John R.W. Stott, I Believe in Preaching (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1982), p. 69.

Ryan T. Anderson on “True Marriage Equality: Man and Woman”

Ryan T. Anderson recently lectured at Union University on the nature of marriage and the consequences for redefining it.

The lecture begins around the 7:15 mark.

Here is his argument in a nutshell:

Marriage is based on:

the truth that men and women are complementary,
the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and
the reality that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.

By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.

The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.

The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.

To see these arguments in written form, see Anderson’s essays on Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It, and The Supreme Court and the Future of Marriage, and The Social Costs of Abandoning the Meaning of Marriage.

Applying Biblical Logic to the Bake a Cake Controversy

There are a number of thoughtful responses to the controversy over whether the state should coerce Christians (and other people of faith) to participate in the celebrate of a gay “marriage.”

But I want to draw your attention in particular to two important articles by Joe Carter.

In the first article, “Is Sexual Orientation Analogous to Race?” Carter formalizes the argument being made:

Major Premise: A sexual orientation is analogous to the category of race.

Minor Premise: Race is a category protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Conclusion: Therefore, sexual orientation should have the same civil-rights protections as those afforded to race.

Carter first gives a legal primer on what constitutes a justification for anti-discrimination laws, and then examines whether the major premise (sexual orientation is analogous to race) is true. The entire piece is informative and carefully reasoned.

Here is what he concludes:

We must, therefore, challenge our fellow believers who are promoting hate by claiming that discrimination based on sexual behavior is similar to racial bigotry and Jim Crow-style segregation laws. These types of claims that sexual orientation is analogous to race are unbiblical, racially insensitive, and morally repugnant. We must correct such misperceptions in a spirit of gentleness and truth. But we must also do so forcefully and make it clear that we cannot be followers of Christ and promoters of evil.

In his second article, “Since Jesus Ate With Sinners, Do I Have to Eat at the Strip Club’s Buffet?“ Carter starts with the common argument that

Since Jesus [had dinner with/partied with/hung out with] sinners in the places where they congregated, we should do so too.

But then he shows why this is biblically and logically inadequate. He then helps us think through the issue, adding several qualifiers to make the principle more biblical. Finally he ends up with the following:

Since Jesus [had dinner with/partied with/hung out with] sinners in the places where they congregated, we should do so too when: (1) they are not engaging in sin, (2) we do so for the purpose of calling them to repentance, (3) when our presence does not condone sin or the mocking of God, and/or (4) when the sinners are not our fellow believers.

He then pleads with fellow believers:

Please stop arguing that Christians should be forced to violate their conscience unless you are willing to be consistent in its application. On this issue, what our culture accepts cannot be used as the standard. Fifty years ago, racism was tolerated while sexual sins were publicly denounced. Today, the situation is reversed. Many Christians (surprisingly, even some Anabaptists) are now willing to argue (or at least imply) that the state should be able to force Christians to serve at celebrations of sexual sin. Yet, these same people will likely balk at claiming that we should be forced to serve celebrations of racial sin.

If, like the Pharisees, you want to bind the conscience of all believers to a standard that is difficult, if not impossible, to support by Scripture, the least you can do is to argue for its broad application. Tell us that the white baker is not only obligated to serve a same-sex wedding but that the African-American florist is obligated to bake a cake for the Aryan Nation’s national convention.

If you want us to follow your legalistic argument, then at least have the courage to follow it to all its logical implications.

The Pastiche of Jesus that the Red Letter Guys Want to Promote

Andrew Wilson:

I don’t think Steve Chalke, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, Rob Bell and co are reading the Bible through a Jesus lens, as much as they are reading Jesus through a selective, progressive postmodern lens, and then reading the rest of the Bible through that. The end result, ironically, is that while the Jesus we find in the Gospels fits well with the rest of the scriptures—as you might expect, given that he inspired them—neither the Jesus of the Gospels, nor the Bible, fit particularly well with the pastiche of Jesus that the Red Letter guys want to promote. When all is said and done, the biblical Jesus cannot be squeezed thorough the fine mesh of the progressive Jesus tea-strainer. Given the choice, we’re probably better off with the biblical one.

Read the whole thing for his examples from Jesus. You can watch the first part of the dialogue between Wilson and Chalke here:

What You Have to Do First Before You Can Agree or Disagree with Someone

Mortimer Adler, How to Read a Book:

You must be able to say, with reasonable certainty,

“I understand,”

before you can say any one of the following things:

“I agree,” or

“I disagree,” or

“I suspend judgment.”

For those who don’t do this, he says:

There is actually no point in answering critics of this sort.

The only polite thing to do is to ask them to state your position for you, the position they claim to be challenging.

If they cannot do it satisfactorily, if they cannot repeat what you have said in their own words, you know that they do not understand, and you are entirely justified in ignoring their criticisms.

Alder goes on:

When you find the rare person who shows that he understands what you are saying as well as you do, then you can delight in his agreement or be seriously disturbed by his dissent.

How to Stop Misusing the Word “Hypocrisy”

Boston College philosopher Peter Kreeft:

The common, modern misunderstanding of hypocrisy [is] not practicing what you preach. . . . Actually, we have misdefined “hypocrisy.” Hypocrisy is not the failure to practice what you preach but the failure to believe it. Hypocrisy is propaganda.

The great art critic William Hazlitt (1778-1830):

He is a hypocrite who professes what he does not believe; not he who does not practice all he wishes or approves.

The American Heritage Dictionary:

[Hypocrisy is] the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Inigo Montoya:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

HT: Joe Carter

A Grid for Understanding Biblical and Unbiblical Transcendence and Immanence

John Frame’s The Doctrine of God (P&R, 2002) is one of the most helpful books I’ve read on this glorious subject. In this work, Professor Frame uses a rubric he introduced in his book on covenantal epistemology, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. He calls it the Square on Transcendence and Immanence.

He explains that transcendence evokes the pictures of God as “high,” “lifted up,” “exalted” (Ps. 7:7; 9:2; Isa. 6:1). Immanence, on the other hand, connotes God being “near” and “with us” in covenant (Gen. 21:22; 26:3, 24, 28; 28:15; Deut. 4:7; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23).

Although Frame uses a box to illustrate this, I wonder if it’s more helpful to do it in a traditional chart. What follows is essentially his teaching:

Biblical
Non-biblical


Transcendence
A. God is in authoritative control
C. God is not present


Immanence
B. God is covenantally present
D. God and the world are indistinguishable

The A-B boxes of the first column, taken together, are the unified biblical view of God’s transcendent- immanence and his immanent-transcendence.

God exhibits his covenantal lordship attributes of control and authority (A), and presence (B).

The C-D boxes of the second column represent incompatible and unbiblical views.

In an unbiblical view of God’s transcendence (C), he is so far “above us” that he cannot be known or identified in history—he is “wholly other” (so Barth).

In an unbiblical view of his immanence (D), he is so near to us that he essentially is us. Functionally, either man becomes God or God is reduced to man.

The diagonal boxes (A-D and B-C) and are contradictory.

To say that God is supreme (A) is to deny that man is autonomous (D).

To say that God is covenantally present (B) is to deny that God is so far beyond us that he cannot be known, spoken of, or identified in history (C).

This grid ends up being a more nuanced and fruitful way to think these biblical truths than merely defining  transcendence as “God above or apart from us” and immanence as “God’s omnipresence.” And contrasting them with their distortion and opposite clarifies the biblical meaning all the more.

When the Trials of Life Are Mercies in Disguise

Laura Story’s song, “Blessings“:

The Connection between Learning Traditional Logic and the Ability to Read and Write Well

Peter Kreeft, in Socratic Logic, pp. 2-3:

On the basis of over 40 years of full time college teaching of almost 20,000 students at 20 different schools, I am convinced that one of the reasons for the steep decline in students’ reading abilities is the decline in the teaching of traditional logic.

Mortimer Adler’s classic How to Read a Book is based on the traditional common-sense logic of the “three acts of the mind” [simple apprehension, judging, reasoning]. . . . If I were a college president, I would require every incoming freshman to read Adler’s book and pass a test on it before taking other courses.

. . . . clear writing and thinking are a “package deal”: the presence or absence of either one brings the presence or absence of the other. Muddled writings fosters muddled thinking, and muddled thinking fosters muddled writing. Clear writing fosters clear thinking, and clear thinking fosters clear writing. . . .

There is nothing more effective than traditional logic in training you to be a clear, effective, and careful writer.