Translate

Thursday, September 6, 2012

The Rt. Rev. Rants


The Reverend Rants

Rebellion against Nature. I have read that Constantine outlawed the breaking of wind (my wife does not like me to use the proper word).  If this is true, then everyone was made a lawbreaker. It also provides another example of an attempt to rebel against nature (in this case in the service of what was assumed to be the “good”). There are all too many examples: night baseball in October, artificial turf, indoor stadia, football in February, Savannah State playing Oklahoma State, American men playing soccer anytime. If this sort of war against nature had prevailed in earlier times, there would never have been an Ice Bowl with Bart Starr scoring behind Jerry Kramer. No thrill of sneaking a transistor radio into class to listen to the Series.
Crimes against Nature. Speaking of sins against nature, I still don’t get the pre- and posthumous treatment of Joe Paterno. What did he do (and, yes, I know his damning sin supposed to be what he failed to do) that warrants the destruction of his reputation and good works, the erasure of his record of wins, the removal of his statue, and the destruction of the football program he built? Paterno and his team got no competitive advantage from the sins of Jerry Sandusky. So na├»ve was Joe regarding sins against nature that he had to get someone to tell him what sodomy is. The NCAA could do with a little two-kingdoms or even sphere-sovereignty theology. There is the kingdom of sports law (the province of the NCAA) and the kingdom of criminal law (the province of the State). The two kingdoms or spheres should keep within proper limits.
Death Penalty. Speaking of the death penalty, to say that the state has the discretionary authority to use the death penalty to punish crime is not the same as to say it must use the death penalty to punish crime.
Escape from Reason. Joseph Bayly on Carl Trueman, Complementarianism, Secondary Issues, and  Inerrancy: “Second, and more important, though Professor Trueman views inerrancy as the lynchpin of Evangelical orthodoxy, inerrancy is just another squishy academic neologism that confuses more than it helps. Inerrancy became the Evangelical rallying cry in the 1970s in response to liberalism's inroads in Evangelical schools and churches. Rather than respond to liberalism's challenges individually, Harold Lindsell, Roger Nicole and other Evangelical leaders forged consensus behind a doctrine they termed "inerrancy," the proposition that the text of Scripture was entirely without error in its original autographs. Yet despite its appearance of rigor, inerrancy has proved an Evangelical Maginot Line.” According to this Bayly, inerrancy is an academic weasel word. And the doctrine lay dormant till the 70’s. Somebody wake up the dead white Princeton guys.

She Surrenders All. According to Tim Bayly: “As I've pointed out many times and will continue to point out, those weddings you attend or officiate that do not include the wife's vow to obey or submit to her husband are not Biblical weddings.” Father (as in patriarchy), forgive us.
















1 comment:

Joseph Bayly said...

2 things. First, I think you mean "David Bayly" where you say "Joseph Bayly." Second, you might find it helpful to read Rick Reilly's explanation of how Paterno was intentionally sacrificing children in order to build his football career. He wasn't naive.

Let me pose a made-up example. Suppose that a football coach sneaks into the other team's locker room just before the game and secretly strangles the opposing coach, dumping his body in a closet. He then goes out and leads his team to a win against a team that can't find their head coach. Suppose this was for the Super Bowl. Now suppose he does this every time his team gets to the Super Bowl, but after 15 years and 12 wins, they catch him. Should he be able to keep his rings?

Sphere sovereignty means that the NFL punishes him for his football crimes, and the judge and jury do for his actual crimes. Sphere sovereignty has been followed. The NCAA didn't take civil punishment into their hands. They took football punishment in hand and used it. His football crime is, as Rick Reilly says, "winning without regard for morals." The punishment is taking away those wins.

Paterno is the one who decided to base his football career on child abuse. He had the choice of keeping them unrelated, but he didn't.

It might help you to think about the purposes of church discipline. One of them is so that others will be prevented from falling into the same sin. The same is true of NCAA punishments. Joe Paterno didn't care about the risks he was taking in order to get wins. He was willing to risk civil suits. He was willing to risk children being molested and abused. He only cared about the win. Now they have been taken away and he realizes that he was risking the wins, too.

There are other coaches like him, and Lord willing, the NCAA actions will make them realize that they are risking more by covering up wickedness than by exposing it.

In Christ,
-Joseph