Because things are hopping, and there is much to write about, and I wanted to respond (briefly) to Thabiti’s rejoinder, the much beloved letters feature is going to appear next Tuesday instead of this Tuesday. Unless something else happens.
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
NNOOOO!!! Not the letters feature!!
For some reason, this makes me think of…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a33sr9UGvo
Both parties agree to the validity of the notion of generational and cultural complicity. That notion has to be defined carefully. Otherwise, it’s hard to see how it does not make our Savior himself a sinner. He was part of a sinning culture. There is no reference to him being woke until the age of thirty. Did he eat salt or use iron mined by slaves? Even when calling folk to repentance, he denounces the sins individuals commit, more than structural “sins.” He holds individuals accountable for oppressing widows, not the society. That’s not very woke.
Agreeeeeeeeed, and to add… A tree is known by its fruit. What is the fruit of “woke” theology? The only fruit I am seeing is guilt…
Guilt that is overwhelmingly most commonly applied to a dishonest argument. It tends to go like this: Party A: We need to destroy capitalism. It’s the source of the systemic oppression caused by white supremacy. Party B: How has capitalism done any of those things and how is it a white supremacist system? Party A: Do you honestly not believe racism exists in the world? Party B: Of course I do. What does that have to do with anything? We were discussing a specific fiscal policy. Party A: You need to open your eyes and look around at what the… Read more »
OH so you’re trying to deny my experiences?
“Yes. I am not prepared to confine millions to poverty based on your feels.”
Eh, It’s a tough tap dance for me. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, my natural tendency is to go for the rhetorical jugular. Tempering that inclination is the thing I need to work at, so I try to be critical of myself when someone throws a slow ball right across the plate and my brain says “Hit this as hard as you possibly can”. Because frankly my brain always says “Hit this as hard as you possibly can.”
Yes, I have sympathy with your position. Especially if you are talking to an actual person.
But in writing your screed to no one in particular…
Oh sure. Frankly, I find the idea that people’s personal experiences can never be questioned is flatly ridiculous. I don’t know you, and I don’t know the accuracy of your powers of observation, nor your dedication to honesty. Why on earth would I just accept what you claim happened to you twelve years ago that coincidentally makes you very sympathetic in the current argument?
We join your regularly scheduled race war, already in progress
Since there’s no new letter feedback to respond to today, I wanted one more follow up reply to last week’s interaction with “7817” (apparently a visitor from Dalrock?). 7817 wrote: Katecho provides no examples of what an appropriate use of power would be by a husband. “a husband’s peculiar authority to apply Scripture to confront his wife’s sin” this has no specifics tied to it. Since it lacks definition it is meaningless. “appeal to the authority of the Church ” this, being an appeal to separate authority, is actually a demonstration of powerlessness. It seems odd for 7817 to assert… Read more »
*withdrawal of affection *withdrawal of attention *withdrawal of provision *withdrawal of protection *withdrawal of commitment *outright replacement These are problematic in that the husband has vows he has made to God. So provision of food, clothing, and sex are mentioned or somewhat assumed in the vows. So while one may be able to go down the pathway of replacement if a wife has broken her vows; short of her breaking commitment to marriage a man is not free to break his vows in the face of a rebellious or foolish wife. So we need to talk about specifics. One could… Read more »