Someone trying to justify voting of Talarico. Not that progressive christians need to justify a vote for this schmuck.
"Without trying to oversimplify, I have long observed that there are a series of major divisions in the Church that don't necessarily invalidate the believers on either side so much as they define or at least describe those believers.
This is a post about James Talarico, my brother in the faith.
I will name three of these divisions in no particular order. Feel free to suggest more.
DIVISION ONE: The Great Commission.
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Matthew 28:19 NRSVUE
Does this mean "Make everyone in every nation into a Christian" or does it mean "Go to every nation and make disciples from folks you find there"?
Many Christians lean into the first. They say everyone should be saved, so everyone should be baptized.
Others point out that Jesus commissions his followers to go to every town and share the Good News. If there are those who aren't interested, we are to move on--not force the issue: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.” Matthew 10:14 NRSVUE
Thus, the split here--in impact if not intent--is between those who insist upon conversion and those who honor a person's right to decline.
DIVISION TWO: Salvation and True Faith
Are all people saved? Or, to put it more pressingly, "What happens to non-Christians"?
This is where some folks really trip up with Talarico, who suggested that there are legitimate paths to the Divine outside the Church.
Quoting Scripture here is less useful, though it can be done; mostly, this argument is rooted in reason.
In 1992, the Methodist theologian Schubert Ogden published a lovely little book called *Is There Only One True Religion or Are There Many?*
His conclusion was simple: a Christian need not worry about whether another faith IS true; we should simply be able to lovingly acknowledge that they COULD be and stop fighting about it.
It comes down to control: do we really believe God is in charge, or do we make ourselves into God and claim that power?
How can Christians claim they have the only right path when our own stories say that the Jews are a chosen people and God is faithful to God's covenants? One of those covenants was with Abraham and Sarah, and they are counted as ancestors of THREE traditions: Judaism through Isaac and Rebekah, Christians as a split from there, and Islam through Ishmael.
Christian tradition itself doesn't deny this. Moreover, Jesus was Jewish.
So even before considering non-Abrahamic faiths, Christians must grapple with how to love our nearest related neighbors, and that aptly illustrates Split Two. Do we honor their right to choose their own path, or do we insist that our path is the only one?
DIVISION THREE: The Bible
You have Christians who say the Bible is the Word, a holy text written by God or Jesus (and often "inerrant" and internally consistent).
Then you have Christians who read the Bible as a collection of ancient writings by people, with many persisting as oral traditions long before they were written down. These writers were engaged in "theological reflection," which can be described as a process of asking "Who is God?" and "What's it mean to be God's people"?
Just like the other two splits, we see a difference in approach and application. The "literalists" of the first camp tend to force the issue, insisting that there is only one valid way to read the Bible.
The non-literalists tend to believe that everyone encounters the Bible differently, there are often multiple possible and even valid interpretations, and the human authorship makes this process of interpretation complex and worthy of rigorous academic study.
SUMMATION:
All three of these divisions I have named boil down to power and control. Who has it? Who gets to decide?
On one side of the division are Christians who believe Christians should hold and wield the power.
On the other side are Christians who believe all people have agency and authority to hold and wield power.
One tends to impact people as power-over, and the other impacts as power-with.
As a Presbyterian (USA), James Talarico is aligned with the latter. He stands in the Mainline Protestant tradition that, perhaps not coincidentally, helped shape more than the first century of the USA.
Ken Paxton (and Donald Trump) are supported by Christians on the other side of the division, Christians who have arguably had a larger impact on the USA in more recent decades.
The Christian supporters of Paxton are often more comfortable saying that Talarico is wrong, that you "cannot" be both Christian and Democrat, and all manner of other declarations.
The Christian supporters of Talarico are often more comfortable acknowledging each person's relationship with God as invitation, not dictation. They're far less likely to insist upon power and control.
As a pastor who supports Talarico, I ask:
Which approach impacts people as truly loving?
I know how I answer that.
Christians absolutely can and do legitimately support James Talarico."
"Many Christians lean into the first. They say everyone should be saved, so everyone should be baptized."
The only people I know who say things like this tend to be progressive or universalists. They argue that somehow all will be saved. Which seems to render the Great Commission pointless. These are the folx who tend to argue that "the world" in John 3:16 literally means everyone in the entire world.
"Thus, the split here--in impact if not intent--is between those who insist upon conversion and those who honor a person's right to decline."
The implication here is that it is the anti-Talarico folks who "insist on conversion", yet I know of absolutely no Christian on the conservative side of the theological divide who would "insist on conversion". It seems that the real divide is between those who believe that a Sovereign God chooses those who will be saved, against those who believe that human free will trumps YHWH's sovereignty.
"Are all people saved? Or, to put it more pressingly, "What happens to non-Christians"?
This is where some folks really trip up with Talarico, who suggested that there are legitimate paths to the Divine outside the Church."
Well, this is where folx like Talarico really trip up with Christ who said "I AM The Way", and who compared the path to salvation as a "narrow gate". Most orthodox Christians would agree that there is a path to Christ which does not involve the ecclesiastical church in it's organized form. Yet does provide for the ecclasia or for those who are led to Christ through the evidence that they are given outside of the church.
"Do we honor their right to choose their own path, or do we insist that our path is the only one? "
We honor their right to choose the path that is wide and leads to destruction, while acknowledging that the narrow gate is available for them to choose if that is YHWH's will.
"You have Christians who say the Bible is the Word, a holy text written by God or Jesus (and often "inerrant" and internally consistent)."
Actually most of these folks would say that the text is "God breathed" or "inspired", not literally "written by God or Jesus".
"Then you have Christians who read the Bible as a collection of ancient writings by people, with many persisting as oral traditions long before they were written down. These writers were engaged in "theological reflection," which can be described as a process of asking "Who is God?" and "What's it mean to be God's people"? "
This is an artificial distinction being made here, because virtually everyone (no matter how "literalist" they are) acknowledges the above facts regarding the transmission and authorship of The Bible. Further, I can think of no one who would deny that Scripture contains the information necessary to learn about "Who YHWH is" and "What does it mean to be YHWH's people." That it denies that Scripture contains more than "theological reflection" seems to diminish Scripture.
"Just like the other two splits, we see a difference in approach and application. The "literalists" of the first camp tend to force the issue, insisting that there is only one valid way to read the Bible."
Please, show me one person who insists that there is "only one valid way to read the BIble".
"All three of these divisions I have named boil down to power and control. Who has it? Who gets to decide?"
Yeah, one side thinks that YHWH holds the power and gets to decide, and the other thinks that humans get to.
"As a Presbyterian (USA), James Talarico is aligned with the latter. He stands in the Mainline Protestant tradition that, perhaps not coincidentally, helped shape more than the first century of the USA."
The current iteration of the PCUSA has literally nothing in common with any historic Presbyterian/Reformed theology or doctrine. It's literally a bunch of progressive heretics who've taken the mantle of a once orthodox denomination to wear as a skin suit for heresy.
"The Christian supporters of Talarico are often more comfortable acknowledging each person's relationship with God as invitation, not dictation. They're far less likely to insist upon power and control."
These are the same lemmings that salivated over forcing people to abandon their convictions and demanded that they take the jab, who regularly demonstrate and advocate for all sorts of power for their side. Hell, the goal of electing Talarico is to GAIN POWER and to force the US government to adopt their political policies.
"Which approach impacts people as truly loving?"
Is it "truly loving" to tell people that things which are false or harmful, are actually True and helpful?
No comments:
Post a Comment