There are a couple of things I could comment on – maybe the brouhaha about painting pink toenails on a boy. My 5 year old has had purple fingernails for the past week, at his request, so I guess I am an abusive parent.
I’ve been looking at the idea of creation and the Kingdom of God in the New Testament, but that is old hat.
My sister gave a very powerful testimony at a church last week showing the power and theology of and in narrative.
But I think I will talk about close-minded liberals.
This past weekend another one of my sisters (not the testimony giving one) got married. It was a different ceremony than I am used to, a lot of emphasis on Ephesians 5 and the idea that the husband is the head of the household. My response: if that is what they want then good for them.
I shared this with the local clergy group the other day, noting that it was not my theological or liturgical cup of tea but not condemning it when one pastor asked me if there was a place from where I could make theological objections (or something like that). I think he was pushing my passive acceptance of the patriarchal model of marriage. After some conversation I asked him and the others if they thought such a marriage could be considered Christian; all (not including the Rabbi, she abstained) said no. One person proceeded to describe such a model for marriage as evil. They all said that they would not allow such a marriage to occur in their church.
Here is the thing. These people are very passionate about marriage equality and a Christian acceptance of gay marriage. There is a lot of complaining about those “conservatives” who will not open their minds and accept gay marriage as a very Christian act. That is all fine and good, but how can they then say that a different model of marriage, which many other Christians embrace, is not Christian and even evil? How is their close-minded approach to one view of scripture any different from the “conservative” approach? Something doesn’t smell right with this.
Ok, here is where we have some fun. I’ve started to read After Virtue by MacIntyre. I’ve only read the first three chapters but from that much I have found that he is working hard to convince the reader that the major approach of morality ethics today is one of emotivism. Very, very basically this approach says that truth is subjective but presented in an objective way. His example, “This is good,” really is “I experience this as good and want you to do the same.” MacIntyre is claiming that our morality is based on such a subjective, experiential approach. So what I encountered with my liberal colleagues was a response steeped in emotivism even as they would claim that their response was scripturally and theologically sound.
So the moral is: don’t be so sure of yourself because you are probably wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment