I found the link CHRISTIAN HUMANISM AND THE TWENTIETH CENTURY very encouraging. I think many good Christian thinkers who consider themselves conservative are wanting to move away from the “neo-no nothing crowd” that has taken over conservative politics.
However, when Birzer, the writer of the article, mentioned how Christian Humanist challenged the evils of the Gulags and the Holocaust camps he branded the evils as progressive. To me that was a “verbal slight of hand” jab at liberals; hoping that the impression and message is mentally implanted before one realizes it.
But, without getting into all the details, the Nazis were steeped in ancient fairy tales; and the communists in ideas of how the person exists for the state, ideas that have been around since the beginning of time in one form or another. That these political movements were only a few years old did not make them “progressive”. But, maybe out of good sportsmanship, I should say “Good try”.
However, I did like what he said how Christian Humanist responded to those who had rejected the immence complexity of each individual person. This has been one of the failures of fundamentalism, forgetting the complexity of the human being; this is why the fundamentalist is so confused by imperfection. Their thinking is if you can see the standard you can keep the standard; but, they don’t keep it. That is why, to their much dismay, their hypocrisy is such an easy target.
That said, it is always good to see conservatives who are not afraid of the word “Humanist”. And it will be good to see liberals who are not afraid of the words “conservative thinkers”.
Baby, when I met you there was peace not as the world brings?
His funky butt gave me the Talmud Turnaround?
Everybody called him the Christos of the county?
If I can take a stab at the “progressive” question, I’m also someone who rejects “progressive” ideology because I take the term to signify an ideology that treats history as the long and arduous struggle of the human race to arrive at me. This is the sort of ideology that does indeed drive Stalinism and Fascism, and even though both movements historically adopted certain myths and policies that have historical analogues, both rejected outright any possibility that a robust sense of historical difference could inform their politics. There was much more going on in both cases than progressivism, but both regimes did view themselves as the culmination of human history and thus justified in rejecting those neighbors who were not yet enlightened.
In a less murderous vein, those who call themselves “progressive” in 2011 so they don’t have to own up to being “liberal” show the same attitude towards history. I don’t have to go much farther than the current obsession with “evolutionary” schemata among certain liberal Protestant circles to make this point: there’s a sense that certain features of patristic and medieval thought are still good (the ones that already agree with what we thought before we got to the patristics and medievals) but that the big, macro-cosmic structures are somehow “primitive” and thus to be rejected. In my mind, that rejection of the past as a genuine authority is what makes an ideology “progressive.”
I enjoy your blog very much. I check it out most days. I can tell you fellows enjoy thinking just about as much as you enjoy the Bible.
Also, knowing that you yourself are from the Stone/Campbell tradition keeps me interested. I am no longer a part of it, but it is my past, so it is a part of me.
I found the link CHRISTIAN HUMANISM AND THE TWENTIETH CENTURY very encouraging. I think many good Christian thinkers who consider themselves conservative are wanting to move away from the “neo-no nothing crowd” that has taken over conservative politics.
However, when Birzer, the writer of the article, mentioned how Christian Humanist challenged the evils of the Gulags and the Holocaust camps he branded the evils as progressive. To me that was a “verbal slight of hand” jab at liberals; hoping that the impression and message is mentally implanted before one realizes it.
But, without getting into all the details, the Nazis were steeped in ancient fairy tales; and the communists in ideas of how the person exists for the state, ideas that have been around since the beginning of time in one form or another. That these political movements were only a few years old did not make them “progressive”. But, maybe out of good sportsmanship, I should say “Good try”.
However, I did like what he said how Christian Humanist responded to those who had rejected the immence complexity of each individual person. This has been one of the failures of fundamentalism, forgetting the complexity of the human being; this is why the fundamentalist is so confused by imperfection. Their thinking is if you can see the standard you can keep the standard; but, they don’t keep it. That is why, to their much dismay, their hypocrisy is such an easy target.
That said, it is always good to see conservatives who are not afraid of the word “Humanist”. And it will be good to see liberals who are not afraid of the words “conservative thinkers”.
Two comments:
1) This bracket has no legitimacy. It left out John Knox, and any beard tournament without John Knox IS COMPLETELY BOGUS.
2) Both Jesus and Kenny Rogers are shiny. Implications?
Mary Magdalene, don’t take your love to town.
Wait, I can do better.
Baby, when I met you there was peace not as the world brings?
His funky butt gave me the Talmud Turnaround?
Everybody called him the Christos of the county?
John,
If I can take a stab at the “progressive” question, I’m also someone who rejects “progressive” ideology because I take the term to signify an ideology that treats history as the long and arduous struggle of the human race to arrive at me. This is the sort of ideology that does indeed drive Stalinism and Fascism, and even though both movements historically adopted certain myths and policies that have historical analogues, both rejected outright any possibility that a robust sense of historical difference could inform their politics. There was much more going on in both cases than progressivism, but both regimes did view themselves as the culmination of human history and thus justified in rejecting those neighbors who were not yet enlightened.
In a less murderous vein, those who call themselves “progressive” in 2011 so they don’t have to own up to being “liberal” show the same attitude towards history. I don’t have to go much farther than the current obsession with “evolutionary” schemata among certain liberal Protestant circles to make this point: there’s a sense that certain features of patristic and medieval thought are still good (the ones that already agree with what we thought before we got to the patristics and medievals) but that the big, macro-cosmic structures are somehow “primitive” and thus to be rejected. In my mind, that rejection of the past as a genuine authority is what makes an ideology “progressive.”
I can see your point about Godwin’s Law, though.
Thanks for reading, John!
Nathan,
I enjoy your blog very much. I check it out most days. I can tell you fellows enjoy thinking just about as much as you enjoy the Bible.
Also, knowing that you yourself are from the Stone/Campbell tradition keeps me interested. I am no longer a part of it, but it is my past, so it is a part of me.