I agree with the read that there are fundamental issues relating to natural and civic virtues; the negative world demands a positive articulation of ethics, practical wisdom, philosophy, and the pursuit of happiness.
This differs from focusing exclusively on political symptoms, on the one hand, or on the other hand--and it demands more attention because it is much more subtle--continuing to rely on a tacit transmission of ethics and virtue, which has left evangelical messaging (and its intellectual engagement) dated, misconstrued, or downright off.
I read the John Fae article. He seems to mean well, but the man is clueless. Dr. Scott Atlas has testified to the fact that Drs Fauci and Birx we're indeed not consulting studies or "the science" in their daily COVID meetings. They are scientists, but behaved more like bureaucrats drunk on their own power. John Fae seems to think their pronouncements should be heeded simply because of their "position" as scientists. The damage that mRNA vaccines caused young people, especially young men is real. There are studies. Untill evangelical intellectuals apologize for calling their fellow believers apostates for not wanting to participate in the largest clinical trial in history, no one will listen to them. I am waiting for the day when Francis Collins apologizes to Jay Bhattacharya for calling him a "fringe epidemiologist," when he dared to propose a different approach to the pandemic, but I'm not holding my breath.
I don't really get the point of this article, but as someone who was far enough never-Trump 8 years ago to hold my nose and vote for Hillary, and then didn't vote for anyone 4 years ago, and now has gladly just voted for Trump for the first time, can I ask if maybe, just MAYBE, something has seriously shifted in the political landscape of this country during this time?
I'm past exasperated with Christians who are still parroting the "Trump is a unique, existential threat" line at a time when we've seen Democrats pushing for curtailment of free speech, sick and outrageous child abuse rebranded as transgenderism, proclaiming unlimited abortion as the NUMBER ONE women's issue, and so on.
Democrat policies have really shifted left in just a few years, enough to where we're seeing even Silicon Valley liberals pushing for Trump. Trump's base of truly enthusiastic MAGA supporters probably hasn't grown much, but there are a lot of us who have concluded we've got to slam the brakes on the liberal slide, because THAT is now the bigger existential threat to the country, rather than Trump.
So quit saying Trump was just elected by a bunch of idiot racists. It's quite the opposite, we're watching what's going on in Canada and the U.K., and don't want America to end up in that bad place. All the warnings from years ago aren't just warnings anymore, they're actually happening across what used to be 'the Free World'.
An ignorant Aussie here from the back dirt of the Northern Territory (no water out here so I had to sub in some.kind of replacement to back waters)... But we are becoming like the 51st state of the US so I'll chime in or give my own fair shake of the dead horse ( translation to American, fair shake of the ketchup, which would be transliterated 'into give my thoughts and perspectives') But what is actually wrong with Trump? Is it a moral issue? Why should Christians have a problem with Trump? My logic would be, should we also have an issue with other seemingly well kempt politicians like Biden or Harris who did some fairly morally questionable actions such as withdraw troops from Afghanistan and leave a bunch of weapons and aircraft there for the taliban to play in and suppress women and other minorities.
Trump is well... Trump he is who is, unashamedly and second time.round he seems to be much more measured, and the crowds love him. Why? Cause he is funny, he has a can do attitude and it appears that he actually does love America. Sure you might not agreed with all of his policies, but as an Aussie having someone on the Whitehouse who loves America brings tears to our eyes. It gives us a reason to love our own country... Something that we have been told not to for a very long time by our own government out of shame from our past.
But what could be worse, a Harris government that allows drug addicts into the beautiful USA to destroy the lives of young people. Or a seeming nutcase or whack job of a president who goes tough on crime and actually wants to beautify the infrastructure and cities of America.
Critical evaluation is important and everything any politician says should be evaluated through the lense of evaluation, but I honestly don't see any examples in the article as to why Trump is Bad, and the doomy and gloomy days are ahead for Christians in the US.
"We also see glimpses of it in Trump's cabinet nominations—a tactical combination of political pragmatic destroyers and technologically innovative utopians, scorched-earth political partisans all."
I think the use of the word "partisan" here is sloppy, and obscures an interesting phenomenon: Elon Musk, Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Rogan and Robert F Kennedy Jr. are natives of the left who have recently left in the Democratic party. Their behavior is emphatically NOT partisan. They are bitterly denounced as traitors by their old allies, especially RFK's estrangement from his own royal family of the Democratic party.
But "destroyers" is apt for this group. They see Trump as the indispensable check against factions of the left and the deep state that have gone too far.
Contrariwise, Liz Cheney is feted by democrats for "putting country before party." Her logic is that Trump is such a threat to democracy that it requires her active cooperation with liberal Democrats. She subordinates every political priority to the need to destroy Trump.
I can't remember so much crossing of partisan lines in any other era. But I do think it supports Hunter's nihilism thesis. The imperative to destroy the other side is so great that it overwhelms mere partisanship.
I would push back against the second point on two accounts -- first, encouraging Christians to move beyond social description to social prescription is premature when we've already shown ourselves to be exceedingly poor at social description. Frankly, Christians have not done well at analyzing the social and cultural sphere. Most of our cultural and political engagement has been one-dimensional and hand-handed, and we just have not produced much valuable scholarship or insights on this front. We need to get better at that (which is part of Aaron's project).
Second, and this is related, I prefer "what might be" rather than "what ought to be" because the quick move to 'oughts' give an urgency and moral imperative for achieving a certain outcomes. Instead, we should be curious and exploratory to see what might be possible to achieve within the current environment, with our resources, and harnessing the trends or energies which are at work amongst the body politic. Again, the flaming urgency of the 'ought' has been a major contributor to the evangelical weakness in the areas of social analysis, coalition building, and art & media.
A fine piece. One conclusion I draw is that Christian participants in the debate who wish to or do reach the elite, must be willing to call error error, and truth truth. Beginning, for example, with same-sex "marriage."
If your point was baked into the argument I would agree with it much more firmly instead of partially. I hope the author considers it. Add the truth that human beings are male and female with any rare chromosome variation being a deficit not a type, and I can probably agree with the author.
As I read the essay, each time there was a both sides type point I thought, I can agree only if there is parallel work of "desperate rearguard action" on sports, bathrooms and locker rooms, to benefit not only women and girls but boys too. Boys should not be put in situations that risk false accusations in addition to embarrassment. These things are survival level, not live and let live, and they are worth a fight even if they are tarred with the words culture war.
I agree with the read that there are fundamental issues relating to natural and civic virtues; the negative world demands a positive articulation of ethics, practical wisdom, philosophy, and the pursuit of happiness.
This differs from focusing exclusively on political symptoms, on the one hand, or on the other hand--and it demands more attention because it is much more subtle--continuing to rely on a tacit transmission of ethics and virtue, which has left evangelical messaging (and its intellectual engagement) dated, misconstrued, or downright off.
I read the John Fae article. He seems to mean well, but the man is clueless. Dr. Scott Atlas has testified to the fact that Drs Fauci and Birx we're indeed not consulting studies or "the science" in their daily COVID meetings. They are scientists, but behaved more like bureaucrats drunk on their own power. John Fae seems to think their pronouncements should be heeded simply because of their "position" as scientists. The damage that mRNA vaccines caused young people, especially young men is real. There are studies. Untill evangelical intellectuals apologize for calling their fellow believers apostates for not wanting to participate in the largest clinical trial in history, no one will listen to them. I am waiting for the day when Francis Collins apologizes to Jay Bhattacharya for calling him a "fringe epidemiologist," when he dared to propose a different approach to the pandemic, but I'm not holding my breath.
I don't really get the point of this article, but as someone who was far enough never-Trump 8 years ago to hold my nose and vote for Hillary, and then didn't vote for anyone 4 years ago, and now has gladly just voted for Trump for the first time, can I ask if maybe, just MAYBE, something has seriously shifted in the political landscape of this country during this time?
I'm past exasperated with Christians who are still parroting the "Trump is a unique, existential threat" line at a time when we've seen Democrats pushing for curtailment of free speech, sick and outrageous child abuse rebranded as transgenderism, proclaiming unlimited abortion as the NUMBER ONE women's issue, and so on.
Democrat policies have really shifted left in just a few years, enough to where we're seeing even Silicon Valley liberals pushing for Trump. Trump's base of truly enthusiastic MAGA supporters probably hasn't grown much, but there are a lot of us who have concluded we've got to slam the brakes on the liberal slide, because THAT is now the bigger existential threat to the country, rather than Trump.
So quit saying Trump was just elected by a bunch of idiot racists. It's quite the opposite, we're watching what's going on in Canada and the U.K., and don't want America to end up in that bad place. All the warnings from years ago aren't just warnings anymore, they're actually happening across what used to be 'the Free World'.
An ignorant Aussie here from the back dirt of the Northern Territory (no water out here so I had to sub in some.kind of replacement to back waters)... But we are becoming like the 51st state of the US so I'll chime in or give my own fair shake of the dead horse ( translation to American, fair shake of the ketchup, which would be transliterated 'into give my thoughts and perspectives') But what is actually wrong with Trump? Is it a moral issue? Why should Christians have a problem with Trump? My logic would be, should we also have an issue with other seemingly well kempt politicians like Biden or Harris who did some fairly morally questionable actions such as withdraw troops from Afghanistan and leave a bunch of weapons and aircraft there for the taliban to play in and suppress women and other minorities.
Trump is well... Trump he is who is, unashamedly and second time.round he seems to be much more measured, and the crowds love him. Why? Cause he is funny, he has a can do attitude and it appears that he actually does love America. Sure you might not agreed with all of his policies, but as an Aussie having someone on the Whitehouse who loves America brings tears to our eyes. It gives us a reason to love our own country... Something that we have been told not to for a very long time by our own government out of shame from our past.
But what could be worse, a Harris government that allows drug addicts into the beautiful USA to destroy the lives of young people. Or a seeming nutcase or whack job of a president who goes tough on crime and actually wants to beautify the infrastructure and cities of America.
Critical evaluation is important and everything any politician says should be evaluated through the lense of evaluation, but I honestly don't see any examples in the article as to why Trump is Bad, and the doomy and gloomy days are ahead for Christians in the US.
Quite frankly there is nothing new here. In the immortal words of John McClane, "Welcome to the party pal."
Far too long in the oven. Trump is a Jehu-like figure, which is what is required.
"We also see glimpses of it in Trump's cabinet nominations—a tactical combination of political pragmatic destroyers and technologically innovative utopians, scorched-earth political partisans all."
I think the use of the word "partisan" here is sloppy, and obscures an interesting phenomenon: Elon Musk, Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Rogan and Robert F Kennedy Jr. are natives of the left who have recently left in the Democratic party. Their behavior is emphatically NOT partisan. They are bitterly denounced as traitors by their old allies, especially RFK's estrangement from his own royal family of the Democratic party.
But "destroyers" is apt for this group. They see Trump as the indispensable check against factions of the left and the deep state that have gone too far.
Contrariwise, Liz Cheney is feted by democrats for "putting country before party." Her logic is that Trump is such a threat to democracy that it requires her active cooperation with liberal Democrats. She subordinates every political priority to the need to destroy Trump.
I can't remember so much crossing of partisan lines in any other era. But I do think it supports Hunter's nihilism thesis. The imperative to destroy the other side is so great that it overwhelms mere partisanship.
I would push back against the second point on two accounts -- first, encouraging Christians to move beyond social description to social prescription is premature when we've already shown ourselves to be exceedingly poor at social description. Frankly, Christians have not done well at analyzing the social and cultural sphere. Most of our cultural and political engagement has been one-dimensional and hand-handed, and we just have not produced much valuable scholarship or insights on this front. We need to get better at that (which is part of Aaron's project).
Second, and this is related, I prefer "what might be" rather than "what ought to be" because the quick move to 'oughts' give an urgency and moral imperative for achieving a certain outcomes. Instead, we should be curious and exploratory to see what might be possible to achieve within the current environment, with our resources, and harnessing the trends or energies which are at work amongst the body politic. Again, the flaming urgency of the 'ought' has been a major contributor to the evangelical weakness in the areas of social analysis, coalition building, and art & media.
A fine piece. One conclusion I draw is that Christian participants in the debate who wish to or do reach the elite, must be willing to call error error, and truth truth. Beginning, for example, with same-sex "marriage."
I couldn't agree more. A point worth making.
If your point was baked into the argument I would agree with it much more firmly instead of partially. I hope the author considers it. Add the truth that human beings are male and female with any rare chromosome variation being a deficit not a type, and I can probably agree with the author.
As I read the essay, each time there was a both sides type point I thought, I can agree only if there is parallel work of "desperate rearguard action" on sports, bathrooms and locker rooms, to benefit not only women and girls but boys too. Boys should not be put in situations that risk false accusations in addition to embarrassment. These things are survival level, not live and let live, and they are worth a fight even if they are tarred with the words culture war.
John Fea is a happy cultural warrior, but from the evangelical left: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=soczkiJea0Y
Excellent. This is helpful. Thank you Dr. Seel.