yo lucas! i'm always impressed with your passion and beauty of your writings.
i wonder what you think about this. in your article in Sourjourners, you point out the systematic nature of our depravity. our inner hydra often sets up beasts of systems that oppresses and perpetuates injustice, such a way that we're often born into a world where sin becomes inevitable. if we can admit to this, then, shouldn't we admit the idea that each person, in the 'right' system, would be formed into a person who would and could do the unthinkable? i too find sauls' defence of blackburn (not sure if he publicly defends her) or lack of rebuke disturbing, but your equating sauls' claim of possessing inner hitler to actual white supremacists attempt to make hitler acceptable... at the very least, not charitable? would love to hear more from you on this.
Thanks for writing. I guess I would point to what I said regarding grace: some people (many) are simply furnished with graces of character such that they are never going to be Hitler. Each head of the Hydra doesn't need to manifest with equal viciousness. Calvin himself says something to this effect.
It's worth noting that if Calvin wanted, he could have talked about people's inner Nero or their inner Pope (being anti-Papist) or their inner Genghis Khan. He didn't and I think that's telling.
Regarding Sauls' claim of possessing an inner Hitler: I confess in my work I have become weary of the "uncharitable reading" claim. There is intent and there is impact. Regardless of Scott's intent, he presented "Hitler" as a synonym for being "Type A" and "needing to control," and also listed him alongside a number of Jewish and Hebrew figures in a rhetorical parallelism that functionally equates all of them.
Again, I'm not saying Scott is literally a white supremacist on the same order as Nazis. But I *am* saying that the effect of passages like this *is* to soften views of Hitler, particularly amongst those who might already be inclined to do so. In that respect, I'm not "equating" Scott + Nazis, so much as pointing out the extent to which the former's rhetoric serves the purposes of the latter.
I should follow up by saying that I don't think assessing oneself for being "uncharitable" is bad, per se. I'm sure to a certain extent it's a prerequisite for any functioning society! My weariness stems more from seeing it weaponized consistently by powerful people (like Blackburn's defenders) to deflect any and all criticism.
yo lucas! i'm always impressed with your passion and beauty of your writings.
i wonder what you think about this. in your article in Sourjourners, you point out the systematic nature of our depravity. our inner hydra often sets up beasts of systems that oppresses and perpetuates injustice, such a way that we're often born into a world where sin becomes inevitable. if we can admit to this, then, shouldn't we admit the idea that each person, in the 'right' system, would be formed into a person who would and could do the unthinkable? i too find sauls' defence of blackburn (not sure if he publicly defends her) or lack of rebuke disturbing, but your equating sauls' claim of possessing inner hitler to actual white supremacists attempt to make hitler acceptable... at the very least, not charitable? would love to hear more from you on this.
Hey Heewoo -
Thanks for writing. I guess I would point to what I said regarding grace: some people (many) are simply furnished with graces of character such that they are never going to be Hitler. Each head of the Hydra doesn't need to manifest with equal viciousness. Calvin himself says something to this effect.
It's worth noting that if Calvin wanted, he could have talked about people's inner Nero or their inner Pope (being anti-Papist) or their inner Genghis Khan. He didn't and I think that's telling.
Regarding Sauls' claim of possessing an inner Hitler: I confess in my work I have become weary of the "uncharitable reading" claim. There is intent and there is impact. Regardless of Scott's intent, he presented "Hitler" as a synonym for being "Type A" and "needing to control," and also listed him alongside a number of Jewish and Hebrew figures in a rhetorical parallelism that functionally equates all of them.
Again, I'm not saying Scott is literally a white supremacist on the same order as Nazis. But I *am* saying that the effect of passages like this *is* to soften views of Hitler, particularly amongst those who might already be inclined to do so. In that respect, I'm not "equating" Scott + Nazis, so much as pointing out the extent to which the former's rhetoric serves the purposes of the latter.
I should follow up by saying that I don't think assessing oneself for being "uncharitable" is bad, per se. I'm sure to a certain extent it's a prerequisite for any functioning society! My weariness stems more from seeing it weaponized consistently by powerful people (like Blackburn's defenders) to deflect any and all criticism.