I find it hard to believe that a very clear theological statement pregnant with a Pandora's box of theological meaning is not making a theological assertion. In a discussion here Mollie decides that her inclusion of clearly theological statement is not a theological statement perhaps pursuant to the content Get Religion itself. Yet it is clear that the blog makes theological statements and assertions on a continual basis. This is about as clear a case in point as one can find.
In the discussion she says:
I never actually argued for or against any theological position on homosexuality. (#22)
Actually, I never once argued in favor of one theological position or another. (#37)
Yet in the post she says:
Now, I know that many (all?) of the mainstream media believe with their heart, mind and soul in the inherent goodness of homosexuality and badness of the church’s teaching that homosexuality is not what God wants for us. But let’s just go with a thought experiment.
Pick something else that Scriptures teach is a deviation from God’s will. Anything will do, really, but let’s take an easy one from the Ten Commandments — “lying.”
Yet somehow this is an objective statement about "journalism"? No matter what friendly wrapping you may put around any statement attempting to discern "what God wants for us" it is inherently theological. This is so obviously disingenuous it is quite hard to understand how the obvious was missed in the entire discourse this weekend.
However, I think it reveals what "Get Religion" truly serves. It functions as a counter to the much maligned "liberal mainstream media" that reports religion. It is not that the media does not "get" religion, it is that they do not report religion in a very conservative friendly language, allegedly. Perhaps that is true and worth a discussion on its own merit. But to bait and switch objectivity with a clear ideological and theological position boils to absurdity – at least in this case. I hope more people can see this for what it actually is regardless of the brand that the contributors are trying to create.
And, mercifully, thus ends my last blow to this farce.
Related posts:
Drew,
I totally agree with you. Have you seen what she posted to me after my comment from this morning?
On an aside, the fact that I read your blog is a testament to Twitter and technology. I joined Twitter and starting following the Prebymergent stuff and that's how I've ended up following. Anyways, enjoy your posts and I'm enjoying breaking into Twitter and blogging.
I have a couple ideas I would love to talk to you about your "radical church idea or, what i would like to do with my life some day" In particular, it relates to a grant that group of us our going to write to our presbytery for a collaborative Young Adult ministry. Incidentally, I posted once before in regard to this.
I'm entering my email into your blog. If you shoot me an email I would love to hear what you think.
Thanks,
Bryce
If those are not theological statements surely it would at least be "entertaining" (in the dilettante fool, I have no idea of my Enlightenment influences, watch them write something else stupid sense of entertaining) to see what her idea of a theological statement is.
look forward to the email and talking more. peace.
I just said this same thing to Terry today in the comments on my blog- and am editing a post called is GR a conservative tool? So, I am getting pissed about the fact that not only are you the greater mind but that you keep posting these well timed posts before me! Haha.
i will get them from the front, you get them from the back.
I appreciate your courage and perseverance. Hang in there and keep preaching truth! One post and one tweet at at a time. I think you should write a book. Or the #myfavoritebbilestory version of the Bible.
Drew, I am so happy that you and Tony have taken up the cudgels against getreligion. Your description of the operation as "bait and switch" hits the nail on the head. Their pretense to objectivity is exactly that–a pretense. Lovely how Mollie thinks it is only the media that dislikes the teaching that homosexuality is bad; she seems not to be able to get it through her thick head that lots of churches and Christians reject the notion that homosexuality is a sin. Ironically, she can't see why people, including especially homosexuals, might think that those who hold that homosexuality is inherently sinful are not gay-friendly. I was struck by your analogy to having someone over for a meal and pointing out that you disapprove of their relationship: inasmuch as sharing a meal is a traditional symbol of agape, the analogy is really appropriate here. If Christians really want to be "gay friendly," then they need to be friends with gay people.
and the dinner thing is, i don't think, just an analogy. in luke 10 jesus tells the 72 to heal the sick and break bread with people who will welcome them. these are social rituals that are very much alive in virtually all cultures. if people are to sit with you at the table, that is a symbol of equality and peace. it is a sign of grace and mercy. judging someone at your table is a clear rejection from that table and telling them "you are not welcome here. that's why "welcome but not affirm" does not work out as advertised in any social structure.
Drew, I am so happy that you and Tony have taken up the cudgels against getreligion. Your description of the operation as "bait and switch" hits the nail on the head. Their pretense to objectivity is exactly that–a pretense. Lovely how Mollie thinks it is only the media that dislikes the teaching that homosexuality is bad; she seems not to be able to get it through her thick head that lots of churches and Christians reject the notion that homosexuality is a sin. Ironically, she can't see why people, including especially homosexuals, might think that those who hold that homosexuality is inherently sinful are not gay-friendly. I was struck by your analogy to having someone over for a meal and pointing out that you disapprove of their relationship: inasmuch as sharing a meal is a traditional symbol of agape, the analogy is really appropriate here. If Christians really want to be "gay friendly," then they need to be friends with gay people.
and the dinner thing is, i don't think, just an analogy. in luke 10 jesus tells the 72 to heal the sick and break bread with people who will welcome them. these are social rituals that are very much alive in virtually all cultures. if people are to sit with you at the table, that is a symbol of equality and peace. it is a sign of grace and mercy. judging someone at your table is a clear rejection from that table and telling them "you are not welcome here. that's why "welcome but not affirm" does not work out as advertised in any social structure.