Monday, March 15, 2021

Deacon Greydanus knows not what he does

By wading into the tangled jungle of Southern Baptist culture.  Fact is, from a purely orthodox Evangelical perspective, c. 1990s, losing Ms. Moore, at least as a 'Bible Teacher', would be like Van Halen losing Sammy Hagar.  Despite her sucking up to #MeToo claims that criticism of her was due to sexist men, it was actually based on substance.  For most of us, her Bible studies came off like a loosely Evangelical combo of Oprah and Smilin' Joel Osteen.  She often seemed a mile wide and an inch deep.  While not all of what she produced was bad, it smacked more of the 'Talk Show' feel that was the rage in the day than a grounded approach to Scripture study.

As for the black pastor, I have no clue.  I see he posted on his church's Facebook page that learning figures in the Bible, like Solomon, were black makes it all the more special.  I guess embracing the idea that it's really all about the skin color.  Other than that, I don't know.  

I do know the tangled mess of SBC polity is something best not commented on, especially if you're Catholic.  Because, you see, Moore and the pastor and others in question can do just what they're doing.  That is, if they don't like their current denominational affiliation, they can happily ditch it and find another Protestant denomination more to their liking.  A characteristic of Protestantism that Catholics rightly criticize.  It's something that has been a cancerous rot in the greater Church for centuries: I'll choose the faith tradition that fits best.  Doing so under the modern 'because their politics are the problem and I'm not' template only compounds the scandal. 

Catholics can't do what Moore is doing, however, and must take the good Deacon's approach of blaming the Church's ills on those other Catholics over there who don't approach political narratives like the way I do.  Though so universal is the 'Be Leftists or be Nazi' paradigm, notice that both Catholic Deacon Greydanus and those Evangelicals interviewed in the article accept it as the goto ecclesiastical framework.  If you aren't aligning with the Left's narratives, you're a nationalist (read: Nazi), racist, sexist, etc.'   That framework is, in the end, simply a 21st progressive version of 'thank you, Lord, that you didn't make me like those wrong politically thinking Christians over there.'  

13 comments:

  1. I'm not sure where he got the idea that Solomon was black. Presumably Solomon looked more like a modern Arab than a European, but that's still not black. The Ethiopians claim that their kings were descended from Solomon through the Queen of Sheba, an idea that is not as wild as it might sound -- there is genetic evidence of a significant influx of people from the Levant into Ethiopia about 3000 years ago, which is close enough to the time of Solomon; but even that says nothing about Solomon himself.

    But Ethiopia has long been known to be a special case, along with Kush (Sudan). As for Egypt, Libya, Carthage, and Numidia, they were on the African continent, but I think it they were more a part of the Mediterranean world than the African world. Kush conquered Egypt more than a thousand years before Charlemagne, and everyone from Europe is thought by now to have Charlemagne in his family tree, so it seems inevitable that everyone of European descent also has some Kushite ancestry, though perhaps no single gene from an ancestor that remote still remains. (That depends on selection pressure and how OFTEN the ancestor appears in one's family tree.) For that matter, it's a sure bet that everyone of European or West Asian ancestry has Solomon as an ancestor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're bringing logical genetics and historical analysis into this. That's what Deacon Greydonus fails to do.

      Delete
    2. He used to have pretty good movie reviews, though at some point I stopped following them. I don't remember why, but it might have been due to the fact that it's been a long time since there has been a new movie I really wanted to see.

      Delete
    3. Among some who embraced Black Liberation Theology back in the day, that was no uncommon, to suggest anyone and everyone in the Bible (the good guys at least) was black. I'm not surprised to see that trend surge in the wake of BLM. I am shocked to see Catholics embrace it. Remember Fr. James Martin and his infamous tweet of an African American woman, saying that Jesus has to be happier seeing people who look like him. There is so much bad to unpack in that, starting with the obviously false premise. But it is a thing.

      Delete
  2. Steve has the problem of wanting to serve two masters He's in for a rude awakening if he ever chooses to pay attention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I'm seeing too many who once walked the line trying to keep one foot in each camp, even as the two grow farther and farther apart.

      Delete
  3. Wait, I'm confused. Did that Black Pasor say all Isreal's Kings were Black? Or just Solomon? Wouldn't David have to be Black for that to work? Or wouldn't Bathsheba have to be Black? How is any of that supposed to make sense? Am I missing something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is *possible* that the original statement was that they were "persons of color", meaning they were not white Europeans. I think everyone who has ever thought the problem worthy of consideration has known that. In equally shocking news, the child Jesus was not blond like the Infant of Prague, nor was he ever dressed that way.

      Delete
    2. As I said to Howard above, it was something I saw in certain cases within Black Liberation Theology as far back as the 90s. I've seen it over the last year more and more. I'm not sure what black means in this case, if it merely means non-white. But the problem with me is the obsession over skin color to almost pathological levels.

      Delete
  4. Speaking of Oprah, supposedly Trump wanted her as a running mate in the 2000 Election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heh. I wonder what that would have been like.

      Delete
  5. Side note: After the Civil War, Protestants, especially Baptists and Methodists actively evangelized the newly freed former slaves. The Catholics, while admittedly fewer except in certain coastal areas, failed in evangelizing, mostly from lack of effort. . This is what contributes to the sparsity of Black Catholics today. In actuality, the moral stances and most theology is quite compatible with most religious belief among Black churchgoers. It is late but not too late, to get to making our case to the Black community, hopefully minus the politics that some churches seem inclined to these days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When it comes to actively evangelizing, Protestants always trump Catholics (and Orthodox for that matter). And that makes perfect sense about the large numbers of blacks within Protestant circles. I do think we need to find a way to avoid the Faith getting pinned up with politics, as if any proclamation of the Faith that doesn't conform to modernity is somehow 'political'. It isn't, and as you said (and as we've seen many times), the black community is far closer in its heart to Christian orthodoxy than modern secularism.

      Delete

Let me know your thoughts