A Brief Response to John Piper
Desiring God just republished a sermon (on Luke 11:14-26) from John Piper entitled, “No Neutrality: The Illusion of Indifference to Jesus.” Like most sermons from the patriarch of Minneapolis, it’s worth the read (or listen). The basic message: Christ or Satan? There is no middle ground presented to us in scripture. Choose a side. If you are not embracing Christ then, by default, you are embracing the devil. “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” And scripture tells us the only way to be “for” Christ, viz., acknowledgement of his divinity and resurrection, submission to his lordship, and reliance by Spirit wrought faith on his atoning work on the cross for our salvation. All good and true words.
Toward the end, however, Piper’s applications and cultural commentary become confused.
Therein, Piper treats cultural Christianity. “Let me say one final word by applying this to our culture in America today. Given the moral collapse of the culture around us, some people are saying that the ‘cultural Christianity’ of sixty years ago (for example) is a good thing and that we should work for its return.” Here’s Piper’s definition of cultural Christianity: “a culture in which the people are mainly not true Christians, but the culture is still shaped by the outward vestiges of the so-called ‘Judeo-Christian ethic.’”
Now, Piper is inserting something into this definition that suits his purposes, viz., that most people in a culturally Christian place are not true Christians. This is contestable, to be sure. Why does that necessarily follow from the definition? By all accounts, most people in this country sixty years ago claimed to be Christians and their claim is all we have to go on. Moreover, why would less Christians exist in that context than do in its opposite?
Further, the invocation of a “Judeo-Christian ethic” is suspect, a debatable term. As Justice John Paul Stevens, rightly in my view, insisted in his Van Orden v. Perry (2005) dissent, no such thing existed historically (i.e., late eighteenth century). It is a relatively new creation conjured up for certain short lived jurisprudential and political ends—as good scholarship has traced—and, therefore, shouldn’t be intricate to a definition of cultural Christianity, unless we are limiting our consideration of the idea only to more recent manifestations and accompanying propaganda.
Piper recalls his own memory of a culturally Christian childhood. No state-sanctioned abortion, no drag queen story hour, no genital mutilation of children, no celebration of divorce or promiscuity, and so on. The “cultural room” of Piper’s youth was “swept clean and in good order.” Sin wasn’t absent, but external conditions were better than they are today.
Neither Piper nor advocates of cultural Christianity would say that these cultural conditions were in themselves salvific, of course. That is not their nature or function. And so, the analysis should really end here: things were better when material or cultural conditions reflected and promoted Christianity, even if only externally. Life was better and the attainment of a culture saturated by the moral and ethical vestiges Christianity, if in spite of itself by the 1950s and 1960s, was objectively (on this front) better than what we have now, and not just for Christians.
Assume here all the required caveats that do no more than acknowledge fallen human nature and the imperfection of all socio-political orders—would that we had more conscious, actionable recognition of the latter right now! Then we might be able to inquire more freely about the finitude of our recent political experience and expectations. In a sane, learned setting, like that of the late eighteenth century, talk of Caesar and dead constitutions wouldn’t freak people out. But neither would the idea, the fact, that real law is always living, a suggestion anathema in most “conservative” circles. Exposed near daily is the fact that most participants in the discourse are tragically incapable of real thought. Another cause for lament, to be sure, if less so than the eternal damnation of souls.
In any case, Piper isn’t satisfied with limited, external analysis, with consideration of the temporal benefits of Christianity. Instead, he blends and confuses two modes of inquiry. Lament the passing of cultural Christianity with tears, he instructs. Not tears for the passing itself, but for the “eternal cost,” for the “millions of cultural Christians” that are in hell today. The charge for Christians from Piper is to “rescue people from the illusion that a clean, well-ordered life can save them.” Only Christ can. To which I say, amen. But cultural Christianity occupies no causal relationship to these things.
I agree with Piper that by definition, meaning by the dictates of our shared soteriology, many cultural Christians perished, just as many non-cultural Christians today will spend eternity in Hell suffering under the righteous wrath of God. And that’s the point. On this analysis, what’s the difference? We just described any period in history whether within Christendom or without.
Doubt, apostasy, and heterodoxy, these things are perennial for the church in any context of external, material conditions. The same goes for self-deceit and false assurance. (See Acts 5:1-11. Ananias and Saphira weren’t casualties of cultural Christianity.) Perennial too is the illusion that mere participation or membership in the church is in itself salvific. The same goes for enjoyment of cultural conditions favorable to Christianity. Again, this analysis is not getting us anywhere with the topic at hand. It is a confusion of categories, of means and ends.
Piper is right. There is no neutrality, neither soteriologically nor culturally. Some religion, some orthodoxy, some ethic, some allegiance will dictate both. Man is a moral creature and possesses the sense of divinity. In other words, he is inescapably religious. He will worship something. He is also social, made for communion, not only with God, but with other creatures. We have two dimensions, two modes of existence, then that cannot be bifurcated just as man’s body and soul cannot be separated (except in death). And yet, the two parts of this body-soul dualism can be analyzed separately, if we are to make any sense of it.
Man’s soul is inclined to worship but so too is his body, his material existence. Hence, among other things, the sacraments. The soul and body mutually inform one another. This is how God made us. And all thoughts, words, and deeds should reflect and honor the Creator as a matter of course. It is a dictate of duty and justice apart from consideration of our salvation in Christ. Were no redemption offered the duty would remain given our origin and status.
A decidedly modern view is that Christian cultural conditions impede true religion or heartfelt, genuine faith. The historical Protestant position is the exact opposite. (So too did our theological forbears reject the idea that civil authorities only care for bodies and not for souls, or that a material harm principle was sufficient for ethics.)
Let’s begin with law. It is not downstream of culture but rather forms it or, at least, exists in some sort of mutual exchange with it (see Obergefell). This might be most true in a common law context. At bare minimum, and most broadly, law itself could be conceived as a cultural artifact. Some people would say it is even the sine qua non of an ethne or nation. If the parameters of right action must be shared for a people to be deserving of the name, what does law do subsequently? It instructs, it catechizes. Law is pedagogical. And, indeed, it is even prepatory for salvation insofar as good law impresses on people the things of natural theology or civil righteousness. The old supposition was that men would struggle to grasp higher truths sitting above reason if they lacked the basics of reality.
Surely our present, very anxious culture of death and metaphysical subversion illustrates that epistemological chaos is not conducive to mass conversion. An accelerationist would seek to compound the internal moral contradictions of our day, but a Christian cannot. Perhaps, at a future date when the insanity of our moment fully impresses itself, a radical and abrupt pivot will occur. But now we are speculating. The point is that law directs people morally, and there is no neutrality there. People are either being pushed toward Christ or Satan, and many will become true believers on that basis. That is, because legal pedagogy, whilst not itself instilling genuine belief, erects the bounds of plausibility. What becomes “obvious” and unimpeachable is merely endured by the cynical few but truly embraced by the earnest many. Most people are simple, weak, and communal, not radical individuals. They go with the flow and end up really, truly adopting predominant views and virtues.
On to cultural conditions, those things that exceed rules of actions promulgated by authorities. Social custom and stigma arguably wield more power on the ground as they fill in the gaps necessarily not comprehended by law—the trivialities, behaviors, assumptions outside its scope. Note that John Stuart Mill was hellbent on eradicating stigma for this reason. Christian prejudices are bad for libertines. Customs and stigma can, in a sense, precede law and confirm law, or augment it properly.
When the parameters of acceptable behavior are Christian, people act more Christian, obviously. Christian things, practices, and speech are normalized. Christian customs and stigma are both objectively good and, again, prepatory for the acceptance of higher truths grasped by faith. When people are genuine Christians in a culturally Christian society, it is celebrated. Non-believers may be able to get along undetected, but they must at least fake it. They still have to observe fast days and swear on the Bible to hold office. They still can’t shop on Sundays. Socio-politically, this is all that is required. For example, men don’t have to like that murder is illegal, they just have to comply. More often than not, the fact that murder is illegal will convince them that it is also immoral. Laws, official or unofficial, act upon both the intellect and the will.
To expect more than the production of civil righteousness of cultural power would be to confuse that mode of being with the church itself. It cannot save, but it can prepare. Indeed, the absence of cultural and legal conditions that reflect, expect Christianity, and point to the Gospel should be considered a failure, a bad culture. (Stephen Wolfe’s chapter covering much of this is wildly underappreciated.)
To be clear, Piper is not celebrating the demise of cultural Christianity with a Russell Moore “good riddance.” But like most Evangelicals, he is confused. He misses the necessity of cultural Christianity because he wrongly assumes its causal relation to problems that are not unique to it but perennial.
Piper is famously a big fan of Jonathan Edwards. Humanly speaking, what kind of culture was receptive to the revivalism of the mid-eighteenth century? A Christian one. For those critics out there, who insist that there is no political solution to our present ills and that only a new, spontaneous Awakening will save us, should ponder this historical fact deeply.
Cultural Christianity is not neutrality. It is not indifference to Jesus. It is, according to its mode, purpose, and end, the proper recognition of Jesus and is, at bare minimum, an encouragement to civil righteousness. Further, it points to the Gospel; it is oriented to true religion. Vestiges of these conditions still exist in America, and our country still features, at least professedly, a sizeable Christian population—regionally this is even more pronounced. In some places, a Christian civil righteousness is still preferred in bids for cultural or political leadership.
Where church attendance is valued, the Bible is read in schools, or Christ’s name is invoked in a public prayer, the authority of scripture is normalized, both its moral and salvific elements. This is good, and far better than its alternative. Why would we prefer a social environment that is hostile to the Gospel or the instituted church? Only unfalsifiable myths that persecution will produce more, and better Christians animates that supposition. At bottom, the common error is, in fact, to expect too much of cultural conditions and thereby mistake their function and overestimate their causality.
And at this point, surely, we must recognize that the “traditional family values” of Mayberry are better than the pagan values of Sodom. The former cannot save, but neither can the latter; but the former is much better for everyone.
Image: George Whitefield Preaching in Bolton, June 1750
“By all accounts, most people in this country sixty years ago claimed to be Christians and their claim is all we have to go on.”
Patently false. We have their actions to go on. Sixty or seventy years ago, they protested allowing people to enter university. What were they mad about? The students’ skin color.
Widespread racism in the 1950s and 1960s is enough to disqualify huge swaths of the country from Christianity. Unlike abortion, racism isn’t a one-time sin (it can be, but it wasn’t). That means there wasn’t repentance – it kept happening over and over again. That’s a strong indication that many (most?) Americans – certainly most Southerners – weren’t Christian.
You can easily attribute such sins to ignorance. Men like Jonathan Edwards held slaves. Do you believe he wasn’t a real Christian because he did? You also, David, will surely have sins of ignorance to account for on the judgment day. “For we all stumble and sin in many ways…”
Jordan,
Just because we can attribute those sins to ignorance, doesn’t mean that we should. Please note that Cantwell’s article refers to the 1950s and 1960s. Did you see the reactions to the Civil Rights Movement and integration during that time? Some of them included the embrace of Nazi symbols. Did you see how blacks were treated by Christians and how Christians used the Bible to defend their treatment of blacks?
As for Edwards, Hodge, and Machen? Why are you so willing to attribute their racism solely to ignorance? Hodge believe in black inferiority because he believed that hierarchy was in the Scriptures. And of course, that meant he believed in the superiority of his own race. Certainly ignorance was involved in forming that belief, but you’re saying that other factors were not involved?
With the belief in white superiority by leading Christians like Edwards, Hodge, and Machen, how can we Christians today say that the belief in equality between the races is solely based on Christianity?
Why is it that politically conservative Christians measure the moral decay of our society solely by sexual issues? I am sure that Mental Health Professionals could provide some useful information here.
But I ask the question because I grew up during the tail part of Jim Crow. And though by appearances we were more sexually pure as a society, we oppressed and brutalized people because of their race. And yet despite how horribly we treated blacks back then, most religiously conservative Christians I knew never questioned the moral integrity of our society. And even when we look back on that time period, most religiously conservative Christians I know today would hold to the same opinion. Then again, almost all of the religiously conservative Christians I know are white.
And so I guess whether we see racial discrimination and violence as being signs of serious moral decay rests on tribal conditions and on which side of the whip on which we reside. And I want to be more general here because the same principle applies to the Vietnam War. Most religiously conservative Christians whom I know would not even consider whether our nation’s participation in that war was a sign of moral decay in our nation. But sexual aberrance always is.
Of course, if one was black and growing up in an underprivileged neighborhood or if one was a Vietnamese farmer whose home and land were bombed by the US, one might see our nation’s passionate embrace of racism and militarism as being a sign of moral decay in society. It was Martin Luther King Jr who said that when he looked at churches with their great buildings and steeples and he wondered what kind of people worshiped in those churches who ignored the social injustices around them.
Some of the traits of an authoritarian personality include a longing for ‘strong leadership which displays uncompromising power‘ and a preoccupation with sex and violence. And though here we should note that the concern that many religiously conservative Christians have about violence is tribally determined, the strong focus on sexual sins and the deep desire for strong Christian leadership with leaders who have a vast amount of power over people’s religious and other private behavior is celebrated here. And I only mention this because we need to consider whether the Christian theology espoused here and how some interpret the Scriptures are more strongly influenced by authoritarian leanings than by other factors. And here we should note that authoritarianism knows no ideological borders. I know those on the Left, and certainly there are many democrats, who have strong authoritarian leanings. I mention the impact that authoritarianism can have on our thinking and reading of the Scriptures so that we can all pause when reading our favorite writers regardless of their ideological leanings.
Why is Curt Day so obsessed with conservative Christians? Perhaps a therapist could uncover the reasons.
See how easy it is to dishonestly impugn motives rather than engage with the substance? No thinking required!
JW,
A number of reasons. First, I am a religiously conservative Christian myself. I am just not politically conservative.
Also, reputation of the Gospel is greatly affected by everything we religiously conservative Christians do and say as well as what we don’t do and say. Are you concerned about the reputation of the Gospel?
Now my questions for you are from your point of view, do you think that an authoritarian mentality is affecting how many of us religiously conservative Christians do theology and interpret the Scriptures? And do you agree with measuring the degree of moral decay in society by focusing on how it respond to sexual issues, or would you also include how society fares regarding social justice issues?
That’s why you comment? So, I should accept your explanation and not assume other, psychological motives?
Should you offer the same to Timon Cline and me? I.e., if I provide a reason for my views, you will acknowledge that I, as a conservative Christian, do not have some personality disorder that explains my views?
JW,
There is a difference between making assumptions and following evidence. Assumptions are made for personal reasons whether they be good or bad. Following the evidence allows one to be directed from the outside.
For example, I can make assumptions about your questioning my motives. But then I put myself into a position of not listening to you because my mind is already made up. And so if you see evidence for other motives, realize that we can all mixed motives and then let’s discuss your evidence.
For evidence, do you think that I am misinterpreting what the writers here are saying? Am I making logical errors in my analyses? Did I misread anything? Do you think that when I counter what is written in the articles, that I am being unscriptural?
But without evidence, your questioning only shows an anger or a disliking for.
So in the end, it is up to you as to which path to follow. Do you want to make assumptions about me because you resent what I write, or do you see evidence of me misinterpreting, making logical, I will include reading, errors, or me saying something that goes against the Scriptures? The only thing I ask is that we treat each other as people who have been made in the image of God and people for whom Christ died.
Curt and David Cantwell are both best ignored.
Gordon,
So we should not measure the moral values of society by how people treat each other? That if we racially both discriminate and practice violence against others, that is not a reflection of the moral values of society?
Curt,
As I didn’t read whatever comment of yours you’re specifically referencing here, I really have no idea what you’re referring to. I just mean that you should be generally ignored, as should David. I don’t find your consistently overlong comments worth reading or you worth engaging.
Gordon,
It’s very simple. You said that David and I should be ignored. But what was the above article about what did we write in response?
Yes. It is very simple. I simply think you’re not worth the effort to engage and you should be ignored.
Gordon,
And why do you feel that way?
So, no, you wouldn’t take me at my word if I provided a reason for my beliefs? Could someone sincerely believe that decay in sexual morals is the primary marker of societal decline and a matter of urgency today?
You can’t know someone’s motives, so you are inevitably assuming things if you accuse them of being motivated by personality disorders. The most direct evidence you have for why someone believes something are the words they say. If you think they are lying, you are making some sort of assumption.
I think it is a violation of the commandments “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” to state that people have personality disorders if you have never met them. What evidentiary standard would you like to have applied if someone was diagnosing your personality issues on the Internet? Personally, I would like someone to assume I was being sincere.
I will describe a clear error in what you wrote. You wrote: “Why is it that politically conservative Christians measure the moral decay of our society solely by sexual issues?” Even in Timon Cline’s piece he also mentioned the “culture of death,” and that people “are tragically incapable of real thought.” Cline has also recently mentioned political violence and blasphemy as signs of moral decay. So are you going to apologize for your slander, or no?
JW,
Did you read what I wrote in response to your comment. You wrote:
‘That’s why you comment? So, I should accept your explanation and not assume other, psychological motives?‘
My response was:
‘There is a difference between making assumptions and following evidence. Assumptions are made for personal reasons whether they be good or bad. Following the evidence allows one to be directed from the outside.‘
You mention assumptions in your first paragraph and then talk about reasons in your second one. Those are two different things.
Finally, why employ exclusive-or logic here between having Psychological issues and being a reasoned religiously conservative Christian? Can’t both be true about us? Let me explain. I look at people as being partially like stars. For when you see a star, you see its light, but the light you see is one from the past, not the present. And so when we see people, we see their past. But because we are only partially like stars, we see their present condition too.
And the issue here isn’t whether or not one has psychological issues, we all do. I know I do and for good reason. The home I grew up in was highly dysfunctional. And so with Cline, me, and anyone else, the issue isn’t whether we have Psychological issues. That is because sometimes those issues can work for good in how we approach the Scriptures. The issue is whether those Psychological issues are compromising our ability to be objective when reading and interpreting the Scriptures and doing theology. We shouldn’t treat Psychological issues as stigmas that if one has even one, they are automatically disqualified from speaking. Rather, we need to see if any of the Psychological issues that we already have are interfering with how we read the Scriptures and do theology.
BTW, when I talk about authoritarian personality traits, I am not trying to make some kind of diagnosis based on a couple of traits. At the same time, it is important to identify individual traits when they become evident so we have reason to pause and double check our thinking. And that is especially true for us religiously conservative Christians and authoritarianism because we have a penchant for being authoritarian because of how and what we were taught about Christianity and the Gospel.
You don’t dispute that you misread Cline. I take that as an admission that you were wrong to suggest he has some sex-related psychological issue. Still no apology for that slander?
I didn’t employ exclusive-or language. You’re reading into what I wrote. I don’t deny that people have psychological issues. The point is that one should not try to use them to dismiss what others write. When someone makes a statement, you can assess the truth and falsehood independently of their psychology. Sussing out an authoritarian personality is irrelevant. It turns out people have been debating, studying and reaching conclusions for centuries prior to modern psychobabble. Why spend the effort searching for clues about a personality disorder when you can directly address the logic or illogic of what they wrote?
You admitted as much in an earlier comment. You requested that I only address your fallacies, errors or scriptural misunderstandings in replying to you. That assumes that we can read and criticize without ever resorting to claims about psychology and that you want others to do so for you. Why not grant the same to Timon Cline and other interlocutors?
Another point about claiming conservatives have authoritarian personalities: psychologists are aware of the difficulties of diagnosing mental health orders, so they try to use precise definitions. “Preoccupation” has a precise, clinical definition. You have not even come close to meeting that standard for conservatives as a group or any particular person. And it would be completely sloppy and tendentious to apply psychological terms to entire groups of people.
I absolutely deny that “we” conservative Christians have a penchant for authoritarianism because of what we were taught about Christianity. That’s pure assumption.
JW,
My first attempt to respond to you was not permitted. And so I will try again.
I will try to restate things. Our differences here lie in what I believe are either misunderstandings or overstatements of what I wrote on your part. For example, I never said that I misread Cline. In addition, you accused me of claiming people here like Cline have a personality disorder. I made no such claim. Rather, consider the following quote from my comments on this thread:
‘And I only mention this because we need to consider whether the Christian theology espoused here and how some interpret the Scriptures are more strongly influenced by authoritarian leanings than by other factors‘
‘BTW, when I talk about authoritarian personality traits, I am not trying to make some kind of diagnosis based on a couple of traits. At the same time, it is important to identify individual traits when they become evident so we have reason to pause and double check our thinking.‘
Besides the fact that I didn’t claim that anyone had the authoritarian personality type or any other problem, the authoritarian personality type is not even a personality disorder. And so, some of the traits of the authoritarian personality type include a strong focus on violence and the sexual practices of others and a strong attraction to power.
The fact is that people like Cline have been showing authoritarian traits in their writings. That is why I said that they have leanings toward authoritarianism, not that they have an authoritarian personality type. And that authoritarian leaning is seen in Cline’s response to present day challenges to the Reformed traditions that he holds so dearly. I am just drawing attention to those traits. Again, the exhibition of those traits can show a leaning, not a personality type.
I believe that you are sincere in your beliefs, but I have already noted the discrepancy between some of your other responses to me with what I actually wrote. And your last comment is no different.
You slandered Cline in your original comment, as I mentioned previously, when you wrote: “Why is it that politically conservative Christians measure the moral decay of our society solely by sexual issues? I am sure that Mental Health Professionals could provide some useful information here.”
You were obviously suggesting he had some sex-related mental health issue.
You weren’t suggesting Cline had an authoritarian personality type? So, you just wrote all that nonsense about personality types, but you only wanted to say he has occasionally favored strong authority figures? Sure.
If you don’t want people to think you are accusing them of having a personality disorder, don’t use words you don’t understand. In the context of psychology, “preoccupation” is related to disorders.
JW,
No, I haven’t slandered Cline. I made a general statement about religiously conservative Christians. And it is very easy to show. What time period does Cline celebrate most in America? Isn’t it early America when Christendom was strong and the Puritans were doing well. And note the focus that the Puritans put on sexual behaviors in their laws. And yet who was living out white supremacy and engaged in racially based slave trading? The Puritans were one such group. And how was it that early Americans, and that includes the Puritans, believed that it was their right to take, by force, land belonging to Native Americans? And why didn’t Cline say that racially based slave trading and ethnically cleansing the land of Native Americans were signs of America’s moral decay back then? This is something that David Cantwell mentioned only using a different time period.
Also look at how you are reading my comments:
First, I will quote against what I wrote about authoritarianism:
‘And I only mention this because we need to consider whether the Christian theology espoused here and how some interpret the Scriptures are more strongly influenced by authoritarian leanings than by other factors‘
AND
‘BTW, when I talk about authoritarian personality traits, I am not trying to make some kind of diagnosis based on a couple of traits. At the same time, it is important to identify individual traits when they become evident so we have reason to pause and double check our thinking.‘
And how do you respond? You just wrote:
‘You weren’t suggesting Cline had an authoritarian personality type? So, you just wrote all that nonsense about personality types, but you only wanted to say he has occasionally favored strong authority figures? Sure.
If you don’t want people to think you are accusing them of having a personality disorder, don’t use words you don’t understand. In the context of psychology, “preoccupation” is related to disorders.‘
Besides the fact that the authoritarian personality type is NOT a personality disorder and I explicitly stated that I am not accusing anyone of having an authoritarian personality type, you claim the opposite. You are in an accusatory mood so that you are the one making accusations despite the evidence.
In addition, what is the purpose I explicitly stated in noting the authoritarian traits the writings here including Clines? It was to ask people to ‘pause and double check our thinking.’ Why does asking people to reconsider what was written bother you so much? Would you rather that they just accept what was written on their first reading and thinking without reviewing what was written?
BTW, even in a psychological context, the word ‘preoccupied’ does not imply a personality disorder. Personality disorders are serious conditions and so for you to continue to use the term the way you are using it, you need to read about such conditions before making the claims that you are making. For it seems that you are trying to frame definitions and my words to meet your purposes in objecting what I write.
That’s a lot of nonsense.
You implied Cline measured societal decline “solely” in terms of sexual morality. That’s demonstrably false.
Do you really believe the only, or even most likely, reason Cline might have a high regard for early America and the Puritans is because of sex and race? That’s a huge assumption. Very uncharitable.
JW,
I wrote that religiously conservative Christians measured societal decline solely in terms of sexual morality. That is not demonstrably false. First of all, it is a general statement, not an absolute one. Consider that the most recent interest in politics was caused by the Obergefell decision . And what did the Obergefell decision say?
As for the Puritans, I am not going by assumption, I am going by Cline’s writing along with the history of the Puritans. Whereas he could have complimented the Puritans on some things and criticized them on others, he did not do that with the Puritans despite their strict laws about sex, their participation in race-based slave trading, and their ethnic cleansing of the land.
So do you consider the practice of slave trading and the Jim Crow era as providing examples of moral decay during the Christendom period of America?
Try to express your argument in the form of a valid syllogism and see if it still makes sense.
In your last comment you committed the fallacy called the Argument from Silence. Still making assumptions.
JW,
Sometimes, the argument of silence applies. For example, when Martin Luther King Jr was explaining why he had to speak out against the Vietnam War, he said that sometimes, ‘silence is betrayal.’ The Scriptures say a similar theme when it talks about us not telling people God’s Word at certain times. If we are silent about their sins, then we bear a certain degree of responsibility for their lack of repentance. Also, did Paul mean to include the Sabbath in Romans 14:5-6. He doesn’t explicitly mention it, but with the importance of observing the Sabbath in the Old Testament, one can legitimately argue that Paul implied the inclusion of Sabbath keeping in that passage in Romans 14.
What you failed to notice is that there are exceptions to saying that silence is not evidence. Note the following from an explanation on the Fallacy of the Argument of silence:
‘Generally speaking, absence of evidence is not evidence; however, there are many cases where the reason evidence is being held back can be seen as evidence. ‘
And so the argument of silence being a fallacy is not an absolute rule that applies in all cases. As the quote stated, there are many exceptions to that fallacy. And considering how slavery is viewed today and our nation’s history of racism, those who would talk about using the Puritans as a model for today’s society can’t afford to be silent on significant practices. That is especially true for those who are calling for a return of the dominance of White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism in America.
Another significant practice that the Puritans engaged in was harsh physical punishment for those whose doctrines did not agree with Puritan doctrine. For example, the Puritans harshly punished Quakers and even martyred 4 of them who refused to stay away from New England. If we want to base our society on the Puritan model, then isn’t it necessary for those who want blasphemy laws to be in place to comment on that particular Puritan practice?
However, I can’t argue from your not answering the question I asked you in my last comment. Remember that in my last comment, I asked the following:
‘So do you consider the practice of slave trading and the Jim Crow era as providing examples of moral decay during the Christendom period of America?‘
It’s true that the Argument from Silence is an informal fallacy. That doesn’t change the fact that your comment was fallacious because it assumed the cause for Cline’s views.
To recap: you implied that Cline had some sex-related mental-health issue and then tried to justify it by mentioning his regard for Puritans or something. Frankly it was hard to follow.
I do in fact believe that slavery and discrimination are signs of moral rot. I see them as aberrations from what Christians should believe and practice and not intrinsic to Christianity or Christendom. I am glad that the trajectory for more than a century in America has been toward a more just society in that regard. That does not change the fact that in recent decades the trajectory has been away from Christian morality toward something pagan. The procreative act is central to our anthropology, marriage is fundamental to civilization and representative of the relationship between Christ and His Church. Thus sexual immorality is a primary marker of societal decay away from Christianity.
This argument is a waste of time, though. I repent of ever engaging and trying to convince Curt Day of his errors.
JW,
You have been making accusations about me slandering Cline almost from the beginning even though I didn’t mention his name until around my 3rd comment that was directed to you. But if you back into Cline’s past articles, you’ll find that he has not been as silent about the Puritans and their interactions with others as you might have assumed.
Your criticism of my argument would be true if the argument for silence does not apply here. That is there no discernible reason for Cline to remain silent. especially when he talks about their dealings with indigenous Native Americans and Quakers. Note the quote below from Cline’s June 18th article:
‘The ambition of the Puritan faction—insofar as it can be denominated as one, unified thing—aimed to rule. Anabaptist political instincts were as anathema to them as Jesuit political interests were terrifying. This may explain, in part, why the New England reaction to Quaker immigration was so strong, for Quakers too were not then as they are now thought of. They were self-consciously political and arrived in Boston by way of Barbados on a mission to subvert Puritan hegemony of church and state in New England. Both groups understood the stakes and clashed accordingly. This much is clear, a martial spirit was not learned but imported by the Puritans of the Bay. No “shift” occurred in the late seventeenth century.‘
And so has Cline really been silent about the Puritans and their aggression against others? One would think that if Cline opposed the Puritan participation in the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans and the harsh treatment of the Quakers, then he would have voiced that opposition when talking about the interactions that the Puritans had with both. But he didn’t do that. . He agrees with the Puritan assessment that their wars against the Native Americans were defensive. But were they really if the Puritans came to rule as Cline said they did? And why does Cline celebrate, without mentioning exceptions, the Puritans embrace of a martial spirit and say that it is an example for Americans to follow?
JW,
One more word about the Puritans. They came to establish a ‘city on the hill.’ But they ended up visiting the abuse on others that they received in England. How did Jesus say we should judge ourselves? Didn’t he say that if we love our friends that we are no different than the heathen. Instead, He judges us by how we treat others and even those who oppose us.
In approving of the Puritan’s treatment of the Native Americans by praising their martial spirit, and obviously he expressed no disagreement with their abusive treatment of the Quakers, Cline revealed a lot about himself. And thus the claims that you allege I made about Cline no longer depend on what is implied by silence.
Though not Scriptural, how the Puritans visited the abuse they received on others is quite human. But now do you see why Christendom is looked down on by many?