Better Conversations

Open books

Powered by TypePad

« What does it mean, that He is still flesh? | Main | Loose Proust »

Comments

Fr Greg, no, I did not think you thought that Tutu was correct. I have wondered, as do you, about the role that the decadence of voluntarist religion (i.e., Anselm/Calvin) has played in the generation of liberal ideologies.

Ben, I didn't know that Tutu was the only African primate who through his mitre in with the innovationists over here. You should see some of their vestments. I suggest you click over here: don't, if you are easily traumatized --

http://badvestments.blogspot.com/

Thank you Macrina. Anglo-Catholicism has within it a strain of prophetic criticism against the evils of industrialism, that do not sink to the pablum of Roman Catholic social teaching, with its "signs of the times" ingenuity. I wish Tutu would have stayed thus, without straying into the fruitier zones of anti-theological inclusiveness.

Although I understand the sort of reactions Fr Greg is referring to - indeed I see them all around me - I don't know to what extent they really apply to Archbishop Tutu. His background is very definitely Anglo-Catholic rather than Calvinist, however influential Calvinism has been in this country. I would tend to see his remarks (which I suspects that he still holds in a certain tension with other commitments) as part of a broader commitment to "inclusivism" which seems to have become the new requirement for Anglicans (and many others), at least around here. A central argument that he used in supporting the ordination of women was that discriminating against people on the basis of gender is just as bad as discriminating against people on the basis of race, and he has used similar arguments when it comes to homosexuality. That such arguments have not been adequately countered, at least in South Africa, does, I susupect, have something to do with our political history in which people are perhaps more hesitant to appear politically incorrect than elsewhere - and those who are not hesitant are just so horrendously racist and sexist that I for one would not like to be identifed with them! But it also has a lot to do with the (rather sudden and very sad) disintegration of Anglo-Catholicism.

I would like to point out that Bp Tutu is one of the few -- if not the ONLY -- African primates who is in lock-step with his mainline Episcopal colleagues in the US and Great Britain. The others had the gall to stand up to the their colonial masters and denounce the blatant disregard for historic Christian views as evidenced by the elevation of Vicky Gene Robinson to the episcopate.

Indeed, Fr. Jonathan. I am in no way saying that Tutu is CORRECT here. Again, see my last paragraph above.

Lousy conservative (Augustinian/Anselmian/Calvinist) theology begets lousy liberal theology in reaction.

Well, yes, Fr. Greg. In the event that Tutu would argue against the oppression of his people from prospect of orthodox Christianity, than I would not only agree with him, but fight at his side. I have said as much in these nearly 600 pages.

And if Tutu would argue against the wretched mutant of protestantism that underpinned this oppression, I would fight too, just as I have.

If he would argue for peace and compassion, and against the hypercapitalism that is a rotten fruit of Calvinism (a point he did not make, but I do), I would applaud him -- as I generally do.

But he suggested these points under the rubric of denying the exclusivity of the revelation of Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity. It is one thing for Mahatma Gandhi to say this. It is quite another thing for a Christian Archbishop to say this.

We all have intellectual and existential reactions. None of these reactions, though, permit us to reduce the exclusive demands of dogma under the rubric of apophaticism.

In fairness to retired Archbishop Tutu:

He is reacting, not only intellectually, but existentially, and that over a long lifetime, to a form of "Reformed" Christianity, mutant even by Western standards, that was used to justify the oppression of people, HIS people, based on the color of their skin.

Of course, further, that particular caricature of the Christian faith is grounded in a far broader mutation that begins with Augustine and Anselm.

So what is worse: this mutation or the reactions it produces?

Thanks for the earworm ;)

Well, it's been over seven hours since I submitted my comment to the good people at HuffPost, and I'm still rejected.

My self-esteem is crumbling, and I need affirmed in a purple dinosaury kind of way.

I want all my opinions to be applauded as important and of equal value as those of my neighbor, who thinks that untreated schizophrenics ought to be allowed permits for concealed weapons.

"I wuv you, you wuv me, we're a happy family ... skin-a-rink-a-dinky-dink, skin-a-rinky-do, I love you ... boop boop dee doo."

Let us pray to the Lord.

Here is the truth of it, that this equivocation does violence to the adherents of these faiths. Those the world over who suffer and die for their beliefs, who sacrifice convenience and worldly success for their cherished traditions. We do not honor the hearts of all those souls by saying that their uniqueness is irrelevant or by calling all the zealots "deluded". It is not honor, or compassion, or sensitivity. It is about establishing a meta-religion that these few can see themselves as the new appointed meta-priesthood. It is the superiority of education-and-cosmopolitanism-as-gnosticism. Bah. Amateurish rubbish. No better than freshman seminar material to convince you to get along with your "very weird" roommate.

Well said.

Tutu and the commentators are all so enlightened I had to put my sunglasses on!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

December 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31