I think to be at all orthodox, to think holding true to the unadulterated tenets of a millennia-old religion is something even worth aspiring to, is to be conservative in some sense of the word, and that's the sense I take it in here. The vast majority of left-leaning nominal Christians don't really do this. There are very, very few peop…
I think to be at all orthodox, to think holding true to the unadulterated tenets of a millennia-old religion is something even worth aspiring to, is to be conservative in some sense of the word, and that's the sense I take it in here. The vast majority of left-leaning nominal Christians don't really do this. There are very, very few people who even claim to believe both the Five Solas and Trans Women are Women.
As for Meador more broadly, I'd say take the good and leave the bad. He's a brother in Christ who's thoughtful, offers a fairly unique perspective, has some good ideas, so I'm glad that someone like Aaron engages with him to develop those ideas. He also has some very bad ideas which probably aren't going to go away, which means you can't exactly take his whole worldview and do much of anything useful with it.
What is the good? From what I am reading his idea is:
1. Focus much more on what is happening locally (Good as far as that goes)
2. Get together regularly for meals and invite non Christians in your vicinity
3. Develop civic relationships around what exactly, your shared love of consumer culture and ethnic food?
Every one of these proposal I read ends up being a literal call for bread and circuses to be what binds American communities together. If you go any deeper than that, your shared meal is going to get uncomfortable quickly because these people have almost nothing in common.
To be clear, I'm not saying that book is any good at all. Haven't read it, don't know, sounds pretty bad based on that review, and it's not the sort of book I'd be inclined to read anyway.
My only point is that I think there are good ideas to pull from Meador more generally -- to wit, this essay that Aaron just wrote in response to something Meador wrote, all of which is basically unrelated to the book review you cited. But I'm not complaining that you pointed out the inconsistencies in the man's thinking. I'm just suggesting that it's easy to get into this mode of criticizing and closing our minds to someone's insights based on a friend/enemy distinction, and I think it's wise to try to keep an open mind with Meador.
I think to be at all orthodox, to think holding true to the unadulterated tenets of a millennia-old religion is something even worth aspiring to, is to be conservative in some sense of the word, and that's the sense I take it in here. The vast majority of left-leaning nominal Christians don't really do this. There are very, very few people who even claim to believe both the Five Solas and Trans Women are Women.
As for Meador more broadly, I'd say take the good and leave the bad. He's a brother in Christ who's thoughtful, offers a fairly unique perspective, has some good ideas, so I'm glad that someone like Aaron engages with him to develop those ideas. He also has some very bad ideas which probably aren't going to go away, which means you can't exactly take his whole worldview and do much of anything useful with it.
What is the good? From what I am reading his idea is:
1. Focus much more on what is happening locally (Good as far as that goes)
2. Get together regularly for meals and invite non Christians in your vicinity
3. Develop civic relationships around what exactly, your shared love of consumer culture and ethnic food?
Every one of these proposal I read ends up being a literal call for bread and circuses to be what binds American communities together. If you go any deeper than that, your shared meal is going to get uncomfortable quickly because these people have almost nothing in common.
To be clear, I'm not saying that book is any good at all. Haven't read it, don't know, sounds pretty bad based on that review, and it's not the sort of book I'd be inclined to read anyway.
My only point is that I think there are good ideas to pull from Meador more generally -- to wit, this essay that Aaron just wrote in response to something Meador wrote, all of which is basically unrelated to the book review you cited. But I'm not complaining that you pointed out the inconsistencies in the man's thinking. I'm just suggesting that it's easy to get into this mode of criticizing and closing our minds to someone's insights based on a friend/enemy distinction, and I think it's wise to try to keep an open mind with Meador.