What do you think?
Brick by Brick
living life and new life in Raleigh and the university
Is Christ divided?: French vs. Merritt on Christians and Partisan Politics
Discussion
3 Responses to “Is Christ divided?: French vs. Merritt on Christians and Partisan Politics”
Leave a Comment
Hi! I'm David, the campus minister for InterVarsity's graduate and faculty ministries at NC State and Meredith College. I hope you'll join me as I learn to "practice resurrection" in the City of Oaks, in her universities, and in the wider world. You can contact me at dmwilliams83@gmail.com
Please, people with something to say, please say it, so maybe through your comments I can understand what these writers are saying. It is like reading letters from a different planet; I don’t understand a thing they’re saying.
“the catastrophic effects that normalization of same-sex relationships was having on religious liberty”–What catastrophic effects on religious liberty? Whatever your views, what does this mean?
“Weren’t legal regimes that were focused entirely around adult self-actualization having measurable and devastating effects on our culture?”–What legal regimes?? Doing what???
“a group of people who by and large promote an agenda which is completely antithetical to Christ”–???
I’ve got a whole page of quotes like these, all incomprehensible.
Not being belligerent, just beyond perplexed.
Posted by Nan Bush | May 25, 2012, 7:13 pmSorry to take so long getting back to you here, Nan. French and Merritt are both fairly allusive in their posts (thus making their meaning elusive if you aren’t on the inside of these conversations).
I think what French has in mind with his reference to “catastrophic effects” is perhaps something like what is going on at Vanderbilt University where the school is trying to prevent religious organizations from holding their leaders to defined doctrinal and behavioral standards. This whole thing is a pretty thinly-veiled attempt to force open leadership of such groups to practicing homosexuals. From the vantage points of such religious groups themselves (including InterVarsity) such policy is an attack on their right to define and maintain their own distinctive religious identities.
The “legal regimes” and “self-actualization” bit probably has to do with things like increasingly lax divorce laws (e.g., “no fault” divorce) which more or less enshrine in our laws the view that marriage is no more than an arrangement aimed at personal fulfillment.
The third line, well, I’m not ready to engage that. Strikes me as being a bit hyperbolic.
Does that help?
Posted by dmwilliams83 | May 28, 2012, 3:37 pmYes, and of course you’re right: It’s all a matter of being on the inside or outside of the pre-existing conversation; e.g., I didn’t know about Vanderbilt. Thanks! I do just keep butting in (but learning a lot).
Posted by Nan Bush | May 28, 2012, 3:58 pm