WELL: So Andrew Sullivan has this argument he's been tossing around for the last few days, and it really sort of baffles me:
P1. Conservative Protestants dislike homosexuality, based on their plain-text reading of the Bible
P2. Conservative Protestants approve of divorce, while ignoring their plain-text reading of the Bible
C. Conservative Protestants are hypocrites
I have no specific objections to any of the above (for purposes of this post, anyway). But Sullivan then seems to imply that what should follow is that Conservative Protestants should abandon the first premise, so that they can be consistent.
But, of course, abstracting from the particular subject at hand, it's not clear why the tension should be resolved for the pragmatic concerns involved, and not towards the normative goals. I've seen this come up a few times recently on various topics, and it strikes me as odd: if you've got a normative principle you accept (for us cps, the inerrancy of a plain-text reading of the Bible), why would you ever act against it?
"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
No comments:
Post a Comment