I wrote a critique of Paul’s lecture when it released. I’m glad the fellows and Bethel took a critical look at it. It seemed to me a straw man argument against Christian nationalism.
I’m a regular reader of First Things and have been reading Kingsnorth for the last couple of years. I appreciate them both but I’m scratching my head over the invitation given to a young convert to speak on distinctly Christian matters. Rightly would First Things criticize putting a young convert from the entertainment world up front to give a prestigious lecture, so why do it with someone from the literary world? Kingsnorth’s lack of biblical depth was sadly quite evident in the lecture. He committed some popular false dilemmas.
I think they realized he has a lot of draw right now. I mean, to have Kingsnorth give a lecture that Ratzinger once gave is clearly an inconsistent move. But sometimes you just need to get people who are popular. And, to be fair, it wasn't an awful lecture. It just wasn't biblically and theologically very rich.
I think the criticisms here on Kingsnorth are valid. First time I stumbled upon these guys and found their insight and takes refreshing. I am Catholic so not a fan of Martin Luther and I am guessing that these guys are all Protestant. Still, very intriguing so will check out a few other episodes.
The idea that Kingsnorth seemed to excuse was that the faulty religious teachings, i.e., the false metaphysical understandings of native peoples, had either no effect on their morality, or, that it actually had a better effect on their moral values and practices than Christian doctrine does on Christian morality. That was, to put it lightly, not great.
Peterson and Aristotle are in the same category: one who has interesting things to say that are sage and wise and all that but also does not know Christ and so whose "advice" must be carefully measured against Scripture, but certainly not rejected perfunctorily.
Jesus' words are destabilizing in the way they undermine complacent reliance on the things that man builds (stores of grain, wealth, status, respectability). If our instinct is to immediately buttress the edifices that Jesus chooses to destabilize, it is highly doubtful that we have allowed His words to speak truth to the power of our self-will. “Christianity is impractical, it’s intolerable, and it’s awful in the original sense of that word. It’s terrifying and it’s designed to kill you.” Few among us won't wriggle and rationalize to defend ourselves against this lovingly-administered death to self, but nothing of eternal value (nothing truly civilizing!) will result from our lives until we finally can say say with sincerity, "I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." This is not an ethic to be critiqued within the framework of left vs. right politics. It is not an ethic at all. Rather, it is the essence of pure religion, undefiled before God and the Father; it is the ultimate overthrow of idolatry.
In our time of chaos we refuse to understand hierarchy. Sermon on the mount superceeds proverbs. Therefore we have to read proverbs THRU sermon on the mount. In the same way, we have to read Paul, THRU Jesus because Paul was an apostle OF Jesus, not his own. EO understands this hierarchy, while most protestants in the West absolutely do not. This discussion was a perfect example of useless banter where everything cancels itself out.
This is a distinction without a difference. Christ would never contradict Proverbs, so if deeper understanding and consistency is required, you can absolutely reference the OT to harmonize the NT.
@Cinnamonbuns13 you can do many things and people have many ways to harmonize anything, because as I said, philosophy of the day is chaos theory, and it has a structure of a network without hierarchy. It allows for any order to emerge out of it. But this is not the hierarchy we see in scriptures. So, ones metaphysics and philosophy will determine hermeneutics. That's why you don't see a difference. I am not talking about contradiction between Jesus and OT, but order. In a network, there is no difference. In a hierarchy, there is.
Say what you want about Peterson. Young men have been picking up a Bible for the first time because of him. What has the church done the past 50 years?
Peterson peaked in 2017/2018. I don't know of any young men who have really been into him since his drug addiction and becoming part of The Daily Wire. His influence was largely driven by his anti-SJW positions but he's been incredibly unhinged and lame for awhile.
This and Malcolm Guite's channel have become my favorite spaces on UA-cam and maybe the Internet. Looking forward to this discussion.
Ryan Anderson's question after Kingsnorth's talk was really good.
The film Bethel mentions is Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee
I wrote a critique of Paul’s lecture when it released. I’m glad the fellows and Bethel took a critical look at it. It seemed to me a straw man argument against Christian nationalism.
I’m a regular reader of First Things and have been reading Kingsnorth for the last couple of years. I appreciate them both but I’m scratching my head over the invitation given to a young convert to speak on distinctly Christian matters. Rightly would First Things criticize putting a young convert from the entertainment world up front to give a prestigious lecture, so why do it with someone from the literary world? Kingsnorth’s lack of biblical depth was sadly quite evident in the lecture. He committed some popular false dilemmas.
I think they realized he has a lot of draw right now. I mean, to have Kingsnorth give a lecture that Ratzinger once gave is clearly an inconsistent move. But sometimes you just need to get people who are popular. And, to be fair, it wasn't an awful lecture. It just wasn't biblically and theologically very rich.
This subject is going to be interesting, this episode is on my queue and I can’t wait to get to it!
Way to quote "The Princess Bride," Glen!
Once again, a great discussion.
You guys are amazing and an intellectual breath of fresh air out here on loony lefty Kauai!!
The Jerry Bowyer book is: "The Maker Versus The Takers".
I think the criticisms here on Kingsnorth are valid. First time I stumbled upon these guys and found their insight and takes refreshing. I am Catholic so not a fan of Martin Luther and I am guessing that these guys are all Protestant. Still, very intriguing so will check out a few other episodes.
The idea that Kingsnorth seemed to excuse was that the faulty religious teachings, i.e., the false metaphysical understandings of native peoples, had either no effect on their morality, or, that it actually had a better effect on their moral values and practices than Christian doctrine does on Christian morality. That was, to put it lightly, not great.
Didn't Peter Leithart write a book with almost the entire opposite thesis: "Against Christianity"?
Peterson and Aristotle are in the same category: one who has interesting things to say that are sage and wise and all that but also does not know Christ and so whose "advice" must be carefully measured against Scripture, but certainly not rejected perfunctorily.
Jesus' words are destabilizing in the way they undermine complacent reliance on the things that man builds (stores of grain, wealth, status, respectability). If our instinct is to immediately buttress the edifices that Jesus chooses to destabilize, it is highly doubtful that we have allowed His words to speak truth to the power of our self-will. “Christianity is impractical, it’s intolerable, and it’s awful in the original sense of that word. It’s terrifying and it’s designed to kill you.” Few among us won't wriggle and rationalize to defend ourselves against this lovingly-administered death to self, but nothing of eternal value (nothing truly civilizing!) will result from our lives until we finally can say say with sincerity, "I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." This is not an ethic to be critiqued within the framework of left vs. right politics. It is not an ethic at all. Rather, it is the essence of pure religion, undefiled before God and the Father; it is the ultimate overthrow of idolatry.
In our time of chaos we refuse to understand hierarchy. Sermon on the mount superceeds proverbs. Therefore we have to read proverbs THRU sermon on the mount. In the same way, we have to read Paul, THRU Jesus because Paul was an apostle OF Jesus, not his own. EO understands this hierarchy, while most protestants in the West absolutely do not. This discussion was a perfect example of useless banter where everything cancels itself out.
This is a distinction without a difference. Christ would never contradict Proverbs, so if deeper understanding and consistency is required, you can absolutely reference the OT to harmonize the NT.
@Cinnamonbuns13 you can do many things and people have many ways to harmonize anything, because as I said, philosophy of the day is chaos theory, and it has a structure of a network without hierarchy. It allows for any order to emerge out of it.
But this is not the hierarchy we see in scriptures. So, ones metaphysics and philosophy will determine hermeneutics. That's why you don't see a difference. I am not talking about contradiction between Jesus and OT, but order. In a network, there is no difference. In a hierarchy, there is.
Desert fathers might have been introverts. We got plenty of them in the church today. I don't believe in emotional energy so no desert life for me.
Bethel with a bunch of Reformed dudes
I’m here for it 😊
Pretty Sure Bethel is referring to this clip from Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: ua-cam.com/video/iVqQosyOpg4/v-deo.html
Say what you want about Peterson. Young men have been picking up a Bible for the first time because of him. What has the church done the past 50 years?
Peterson peaked in 2017/2018. I don't know of any young men who have really been into him since his drug addiction and becoming part of The Daily Wire. His influence was largely driven by his anti-SJW positions but he's been incredibly unhinged and lame for awhile.