Frightened by the ghost of the heart

I was unaware of the etymology of “brouhaha.” I shall follow Marc Tracy’s example of preferring “kerfuffle.”

Just now there’s an interesting kerfuffle over the doctrine of the Trinity, with yet another one of those evangelical declarations we compulsively generate seeking signatories to affirm this ancient teaching.

Christians for Biblical Equality quotes Philip Carey to explain why 21st-century American evangelicals are rehashing a 4th-century theological argument:

A whole generation of conservative evangelicals has embraced a new-fangled version of the ancient Trinitarian heresy of subordinationism. They do not hide their motives. They are determined to see in God what they wish to see in humanity: a subordination of role or function that does not compromise (they insist) an essential equality of being. Therefore, they teach that just as woman is created equal to man but has a subordinate role at home and in church, so the Son of God is coequal with the Father in being or essence but has a subordinate role in the work of salvation and in all eternity. 

It seems the culture warriors love their hierarchies so much that they’ve been projecting them onto God, suggesting some kind of “complementarian” authority or “headship” within the Godhead.

J.R. Daniel Kirk reminds us that, while important, the doctrine of the Trinity is not, as “Trinity Statement” proponents suggest, “the foundational doctrine of the Christian faith.”

The foundational doctrine of the Christian faith is “Jesus is Lord.” No other doctrine is more important than that the crucified Messiah is the resurrected Lord over all things.

I’ll leave that as the last word on this intramural squabble, since I tend to get myself in trouble when discussing the doctrine of the Trinity. It’s not that I entertain some heterdox notions about that doctrine (I entertain many such notions, but not about that doctrine in particular), but rather that so much of that sort of theologizing reminds me of Mr. Gradgrind from Hard Times and his definition of a horse:

Quadruped. Graminivorous. Forty teeth, namely twenty-four grinders, four eye-teeth, and twelve incisive. Sheds coat in the spring; in marshy countries, sheds hoofs, too. Hoofs hard, but requiring to be shod with iron. Age known by marks in mouth.

All of that is, in one sense, true. But at the same time Gradgrind is profoundly and massively wrong about what a horse is (and why a horse is).

* * * * * * * * *

Richard Beck on “Ghosts“:

When it comes to God, more than anything else, people are wrestling with ghosts.

And by that I mean people are wrestling with their past. Their home. Their church. Their early and formative experiences with God. These ghosts are ever present. They haunt every conversation about God, faith, and the church. Nine times out of 10, if someone expresses a view about the church they are talking about a ghost. Some residual hurt that has never healed. Nine times out of 10, if someone expresses a view about God they are talking about a ghost. A parent. A church. A preacher.

Ghosts haunt it all. So much so it’s hard sometimes to tell when we are talking theologically or therapeutically. The wounds of the past spill forward into any conversation about the life of faith.

Sort of related: At Stuff Fundies Like, commenters discuss some of those ghosts.

* * * * * * * * *

I was tempted to link to this article by saying nothing more than “David Pocock is my Tim Tebow,” but I’m guessing that would be misread and/or twisted due to the contentious semiotics of Tebow.

David Pocock is a flanker for the Wallabies, the Australian national rugby union team. His article for Australia’s ABC, “Christians, homophobia and trying hard to follow Jesus,” is a thoughtful, humble expression of his faith. It’s a far cry from the slogans and symbols of flamboyant religiosity in American sports. Athletes here point “heavenward” or ostentatiously pray on the field of play. They don’t usually write essays citing Dorothy Day, Desmond Tutu, N.T. Wright, Tony Campolo and Martin Luther King Jr.

Pocock’s an impressive guy running a couple of interesting charitable efforts (Eighty Twenty Vision and Heroes Boots). And he plays a tougher sport than Tebow does. But I still wouldn’t really want to say “David Pocock is my Tim Tebow” because I don’t think anyone actually ought to have a “Tim Tebow” — in the sense of elevating an athlete whose personal beliefs can be made into a tribal totem allowing fans to celebrate sporting successes as a vicarious victory for the tenets or ideologies of the tribe. (I’m guessing Tim Tebow would agree with me on that point, too.)

* * * * * * * * *

Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin has written an excellent summary of the controversy regarding the Salvation Army and its opposition to domestic partner benefits for gay employees. I very much like his conclusion:

Don’t let someone do without this holiday season because Bil or I have criticism of the Salvation Army. So while we both encourage another choice, if reality says that its the Salvation Army or nothing at all, then drop something into their red buckets.

Because this isn’t about “boycotting.” It isn’t about “punishing the Salvation Army” or demanding that they change their theology. It’s about helping the poor and doing so in the most responsible way we can.

Louis Menand (writing of George F. Kennan) wins the Summarize Reinhold Niebuhr’s Theology in One Sentence contest:

We need to be realists because we cannot trust ourselves to be moralists.

“Who Was the First President to Be Called the Antichrist?” Paul Bibeau asks at his delightfully strange blog, Goblinbooks. Slate’s Forrest Wickman suggested it was FDR, but Bibeau gives the prize to Thomas Jefferson.

Pat Robertson tries to revive a Bircher-myth about the peace symbol as a Satanic “broken cross.”

Kamal Saleem sets out to be the Mike Warnke of terrorism.

And, finally, Janet Oberholtzer shares a story about a helpful Christian editor who wanted her to “Tell Lies on Behalf of Jesus.”