In one of my favorite online haunts, Patheos Progressive Christian, a new hero of mine, Darrel Lackey, has posted a couple of pieces, "Pluralism for Me but Not for Thee" and "Providence for Me..." Here he is on pluralism and why it should prevail:
"Before we go
any further, I want to note that, yes, even the scholars who support pluralism
recognize the idea in practice has its problems. No serious person thinks it’s
perfect or without legitimate shortcomings. However, the great majority also
believe the alternative would be far worse and I think they are correct.
"Christian
fundamentalists-evangelicals going back to the early 1900s have a strong
tradition of apologetics and the idea that in the free-market place of ideas,
the best ideas, the true ideas, will prevail. All they needed was a level
playing field. All they needed was the same freedom enjoyed by everyone else.
"Did they forget that not only did they enjoy the same freedom, but that their tradition, their Christian faith/religion (if perhaps not their understanding of it) was the majority cultural view until recent times? Their general view of life, their beliefs, their theology/philosophy, and basic views of morality have been the privileged view since the country’s inception.
"Pluralism
arose in our modern western world for many reasons. But one of those reasons is
that Christians kept killing each other over differing views of what was true
or not. 'Truth' seems to get a lot of people killed.
"After the
Religious Wars of Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, people began to
realize that a way had to be made for people with differing religious and
philosophical views to live in peace with each other."
And here he is on the matter of God's Providence:
"Since the
attempted assassination of former President Trump, there has been much talk of
God’s “providence” and “sovereign” will. It’s at times like this when one
realizes that many people just regurgitate what they learned in seminary,
college, or from some pastor somewhere. As I’ve listened to recent sermons and
read some of the things posted on social media or media in general, one gets
the clear sense many of these people have not thought things through.
"For those
claiming God’s providence when it comes to Trump, what are they suggesting when
it comes to Corey Comperatore, father of two, who lost his life in those same
moments? What about the two other people critically wounded as well? What do
those families take from the idea that God’s providence only reached so far
that day? Why is it that when it’s someone we know, or something we
support/like/admire who escapes a brush with death/tragedy we claim God’s
providence, but for the rest, it’s just mindless tough luck?
"How do we
suppose that makes those families feel?
"Where was
God’s providence in all the school shootings over the past decades? Where was
it when President Kennedy was assassinated? One begins to get the feeling this
talk of providence is self-fulfilling and more a reflection of our own wants
and desires rather than a deep understanding of God’s moving or purposes. Our
pronouncements seem a bit too self-serving in my mind. They invariably leave
others out and make God out to be someone who plays favorites or is no more
predictable than a tornado or random bullet.
"Let’s say
I’m the fire chief. I’m sitting up in my tower over the fire station and I can
see the entire town. I notice someone setting fire to a house. I think to
myself, this isn’t good but I will permit it—that’s my permissive will. I have
my reasons. I look toward another part of town. I see a person setting fire to
a different house. I decide to prevent that house from burning. That is my
perfect will. In that case, I intervene. I have my reasons.
"One might
object- but you are comparing an imperfect sinful man with a perfect God. I
grant the difference but such an observation misses the point. It’s not a
problem of scale. It’s a problem of moral reasoning no matter the flaws or
perfections of each, given the power to act. First, I wonder why we accept in
God what we would never accept in a mere person as to acting or not acting.
Second, unless capricious the reasons must have something to do with a supposed
greater good, but if purchased at such a cost, one has to wonder about such a
“good.” I suspect the person whose house burned down (or who lost a loved one)
might have some questions.
"When we
think of a person doing what the fire chief does, we realize how crazy it
sounds. For some reason though, if it’s God, we build an entire theology of
glory around it. And we don’t do it saying God is just arbitrary or random
although perfect. No, we say it was God’s “permissive” will, which means it was
God’s will nonetheless. We probably do this so we can sleep at night knowing
we’ve created a God who may just be the devil."
Posted by Jennifer A. Nolan
Comments
Post a Comment