The Internet Monk Strikes Again

Another rare Internet Monk article that I actually agree with fully:

http://www.internetmonk.com/archives/2005/09/020023.html

Notable Quote:

Are there legitimate questions of "high" and "low" culture? Yes, but we must be careful to not identify Christ with culture, whether high or low. That one cultural expression might reflect some objective value--like beauty--is not guranteed simply because I like it. I enjoy high church organ music and find hours of African drumming unnerving. Does God really choose one over the other? Conservative evangelicals would do well to not trust their own preferences so much, and to subject everything they do to the values of the Kingdom of God, where many things are upside down from our viewpoint.

(The fact that it is a rare IM article that I agree with I mean as a compliment -- he really deals with deep, complex issues in an honest and discussion-encouraging manner. To do so is to be wrong many, many times. It's also one of the best ways of encouraging people to seek the truth and accept the truth of your ideas, rather than your personal brilliance or virtue or such.)


On a completely separate subject, Firefly is possibly the most fun television show to come along in years. I would be very surprised if a review didn't pop up here sometime in the next week or so.

In Vinos, Veritas

Recently, the Anglican Communion was rocked (and largely fragmented) over, supposedly, the "homosexuality issue." In reality, I don't believe that there ever was an issue of homosexuality in Anglicanism -- I believe that it was a test that largely differentiated two already-separate viewpoints. On one side, you had the Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Evangelical, who held various positions that were variants of "the Bible clearly says that homosexuality is wrong, therefore the Church should not in any way condone or support homosexuality." In many cases the Scriptural references were pulled from the Old Testament, and to my tastes a little suspect (anyone heard of a New Covenant? You know, that thing that lets us eat pork and heal people on the Sabbath and not offer animal sacrifices and such?) But there were also arguments based on New Testament texts, and those seemed more than solid enough to close the case.

The significant feature of the "homosexuality issue," in reality, was the arguments generally advanced by those supporting homosexuality. The high-profile arguments were not scriptural; many homosexuality-rights activists in the Anglican communion readily admitted Paul was an anti-gay bigot, but said that the "Christian" and progressive response that the Church should help people to embrace their inborn sexual identity rather than demanding everyone to fit some predefined heteronormative pattern. I freely admit I don't fully understand these arguments, but one trend I did see in most (and all high-profile) defenses of homosexuality is a disregard for inquiries into the meaning of Scriptures combined with a focus on the fact that culture is different (and more enlightened) than it was then, and the Church should keep up.


More recently, I saw a debate emerge on the internet, centered around a recent discussion by Southern Baptist Church theologians Al Mohler and Russ Moore intended to explain and defend SBC churches' requirements that members refrain entirely from alcohol. Listening to the broadcast, I saw two tendencies. One is a refusal to discuss any of the realities of the Scriptures' discussions of alcohol. The other is a tendency to talk about "preserving your witness" as a Christian by practicing total abstinence from alcohol.

I agree strongly with Al's statement that it is a "really bad argument" to state that alcohol consumption is wrong in all situations and in all times. I, however, don't see the references to "preserving your witness" as representing anything other than a "really bad argument."

Al's argument seems to be that alcoholism has many bad results, and therefore the Southern Baptist Convention is justified in forbidding all consumption of alcohol by its members as a covenantic convention. Thus, in essence, the issue is not what the Scriptures have to say about the consumption of alcohol, but what decisions the Church ought to make, apart from Scriptures, with regards to alcohol.

Arguments based on the "weaker brother" principle seem almost blatantly fallacious. Jesus was, after all, accused of being a drunk in his time, and I don't believe that alcoholism is a modern invention.

I generally feel that homosexuality is wrong, but I could imagine growing up in a culture in which I wasn't trained to feel that way. Nevertheless, a study of Scriptures ought to reveal that my culture was wrong, and the Church ought to affirm such a position. The insinuation latent in Christian requirements of abstinence from alcohol for the sake of your "witness" (read: reputation as a moral citizen) is more prevalent in the culture I'm used to; but it is no more in line with a Book that commands the ceremonious drinking of wine than Episcopal rites of homosexual marriages. The required-abstinence advocates may quote far more scripture than liberal Episcopals, but they also support the culturally-driven ideal that one's "Christian witness" is something that includes more than the natural fruits of the spirit and acquiescence to God's stated Law.

God's Law is above cultural conventions; therefore, whatever we may feel about an issue, the Church ought to require only that which is asserted in Scriptures. To either discard God's commandments or to add cultural restrictions to Church membership is to elevate man's decisions to the same level as God's.