What are your thoughts re Hegelian dialectic?

[Ken]

Note that JBG's thread is about the same events in the Southern Baptist Convention, but from Russell Moore's perspective:

viewtopic.php?p=124157#p124157

If you didn't know that, you would think these were about completely different events. I'm inclined to trust Russell Moore, Beth Moore, and J.D. Greer, I do not know Josh Buice. If they are right, Buice is not accurately describing what is going on.

Buice is trying to describe people like Russell Moore, Beth Moore, and others as puppets at the end of the string controlled by some unseen Hegelian puppet master who is manipulating events in the SBC according to some sort of Hegelian dialectic. I expect he is trying to bring in a whiff of "socialism" "socialist conspiracy" by describing it that way. When really, it's just an ordinary conflict between younger more progressive elements and older more revanchist elements. Pretty much every larger denomination is going through the same thing.

Progressive is not a label I usually associate with Russell Moore.

In the SBC church context he is. Or maybe "reformer" is a better label.

[Bootstrap]

Progressive is not a label I usually associate with Russell Moore.

In the SBC church context he is. Or maybe "reformer" is a better label.

Yes, "reformer" is the better label. I mean, covering up sexual abuse is not a conservative value, neither is racism, most Southern Baptists don't want either of these things. Russell Moore is merely holding the SBC accountable to its own values.

[ohio jones]

Note that JBG's thread is about the same events in the Southern Baptist Convention, but from Russell Moore's perspective

One could say that according to Josh and Josh, Josh has played a Hegelian role on MN.

[Josh]

Progressive is not a label I usually associate with Russell Moore.

Russell Moore has adopted a progressive stance for about a decade now; he has taken up the banner of stereotypical progressive causes like pushing for more refugee resettlement from places like Syria to the U.S., being strongly anti-Trump, pushing for more undocumented immigration and special rights for undocumented immigrants, and so on.

Whether you like it or not, none of these things reflect "conservative", traditional, or right-wing values. These values are entirely in the bailiwick of the left wing, progressives, and liberals.

[Josh]

Yes, "reformer" is the better label. I mean, covering up sexual abuse is not a conservative value, neither is racism, most Southern Baptists don't want either of these things. Russell Moore is merely holding the SBC accountable to its own values.

Except Moore has been in favour of a lot of other non-conservative things. He just happened to latch on to those things to boost his own public cachet (and to make those who oppose the rest of the stuff he's doing look bad by trying to associate them with racism, white supremacy, basically calling his opponents Nazis). The degree to which he operates out of the social justice warrior playbook is concerning.

If he wants to embrace progressive values, it would have made sense for him to join a progressive group (there are progressive Baptist denominations, for example) a long time ago, instead of sticking with one that seems to be the antithesis of whatever values it is he claims to have.

[Josh]

In this article The Synthesis Moment of the SBC is an interesting insight into the secularization of church leadership. What do you think about it?

It’s quite relevant and intersects with a lot of what Foucault said and promoted. Essentially, it replaces a Christian worldview with a material one which divides every person into “oppressor” and “oppressed”, and then dehumanises the “oppressor”. It claims to be the only salvation of the “oppressed”, thereby replacing the sacrament of salvation and grace from Christ.

Excellent summary, Josh.

In essence, do we see this tactic operating in other denominations as well?

This tactic has operated in many denominations, including The Episcopal Church, the PC (USA), and the one I am most familiar with, the takeover of the MC USA by the leftist-liberal wing. I should know, because I was part of that wing during the organised, orchestrated, and well-funded takeover.

The end result is denominations with no young people left in them, plummeting membership counts, church agencies in financial crises, empty church buildings, and your denomination's only "values" left being the mainstream liberal-left agenda.

I would be interested to hear from your Catholic perspective of where these kind of tactics are operating in Catholic circles. I witnessed quite a bit of it going on when I was embedded in a Catholic institution from ancillary organisations such as (for example) the RSCJ. Of course, I was a left-wing progressive myself back then, so I thought all of this was a good thing.

[Bootstrap]

Yes, "reformer" is the better label. I mean, covering up sexual abuse is not a conservative value, neither is racism, most Southern Baptists don't want either of these things. Russell Moore is merely holding the SBC accountable to its own values.

Except Moore has been in favour of a lot of other non-conservative things.

SBC used to be very much in favor of helping refugees, too. Beyond that, could you please provide some concrete examples? Let be be blunt: I think a we see a lot of character assassination with reckless disregard for the truth in Christian circles, even in some Mennonite circles. I think it's about time to be clear about that. When someone seeks to tear others down in public, I think it is completely appropriate - even important - to put them on the spot and ask them to show evidence for their claims. Let's get out of group-think character assassination mode, please.

As far as I can tell, Russell Moore is a Bible-driven teacher with a lot of integrity who stands firmly for biblical values. As far as I can tell, he is questioning political loyalties in a very biblical way. Of course, in the SBC, these are generally loyalties to political conservatives, there aren't a lot of political liberals in the Southern Baptist Church.

[MaxPC]

It’s quite relevant and intersects with a lot of what Foucault said and promoted. Essentially, it replaces a Christian worldview with a material one which divides every person into “oppressor” and “oppressed”, and then dehumanises the “oppressor”. It claims to be the only salvation of the “oppressed”, thereby replacing the sacrament of salvation and grace from Christ.

Excellent summary, Josh.

In essence, do we see this tactic operating in other denominations as well?

This tactic has operated in many denominations, including The Episcopal Church, the PC (USA), and the one I am most familiar with, the takeover of the MC USA by the leftist-liberal wing. I should know, because I was part of that wing during the organised, orchestrated, and well-funded takeover.

It is my understanding that Church of the Brethren has undergone a split for the same reasons that caused the mass exodus out of MC USA. The Biblically adherent groups formed their own (Covenant Brethren Church).

The end result is denominations with no young people left in them, plummeting membership counts, church agencies in financial crises, empty church buildings, and your denomination's only "values" left being the mainstream liberal-left agenda.

I would be interested to hear from your Catholic perspective of where these kind of tactics are operating in Catholic circles. I witnessed quite a bit of it going on when I was embedded in a Catholic institution from ancillary organisations such as (for example) the RSCJ. Of course, I was a left-wing progressive myself back then, so I thought all of this was a good thing.

These tactics by left-wing progressives have been growing in the RCC since Vatican II but were/are held in check by those keep the Deposit of the Faith and the Bible front and center of focus. Feminist groups, pro-homosexual groups and the rest are always nattering about how badly they are misunderstood.

We get a few Bishops who try to kick up the dust, such as those liberal Bishops in Germany right now. We get Bishops who even leave and form their own groups (the conservative Lefebvrites).

This tension has occurred for almost 2000 years in the RCC. Some Bishops settle down. Others leave. The RCC still exists.

Recently in the US, 59 Bishops signed a letter that said in essence (paraphrased): "we don't want to talk about politicians who call themselves Catholic and support abortion at the June Bishops' meeting." That was only 59 out of 271. The others will indeed talk about it and it remains on the agenda for that meeting.

You will hear or see quite a few op-eds out of the secular media, second guessing this June meeting: yet they do not have a clue about church procedures, church terminology and church teaching. So they will guess and write the most inflammatory headlines to get people to click on links, buy their papers or tune into their channels. Nothing changes in that regard.

[Ken]

Excellent summary, Josh.

In essence, do we see this tactic operating in other denominations as well?

This tactic has operated in many denominations, including The Episcopal Church, the PC (USA), and the one I am most familiar with, the takeover of the MC USA by the leftist-liberal wing. I should know, because I was part of that wing during the organised, orchestrated, and well-funded takeover.

It is my understanding that Church of the Brethren has undergone a split for the same reasons that caused the mass exodus out of MC USA. The Biblically adherent groups formed their own (Covenant Brethren Church).

The end result is denominations with no young people left in them, plummeting membership counts, church agencies in financial crises, empty church buildings, and your denomination's only "values" left being the mainstream liberal-left agenda.

I would be interested to hear from your Catholic perspective of where these kind of tactics are operating in Catholic circles. I witnessed quite a bit of it going on when I was embedded in a Catholic institution from ancillary organisations such as (for example) the RSCJ. Of course, I was a left-wing progressive myself back then, so I thought all of this was a good thing.

These tactics by left-wing progressives have been growing in the RCC since Vatican II but were/are held in check by those keep the Deposit of the Faith and the Bible front and center of focus. Feminist groups, pro-homosexual groups and the rest are always nattering about how badly they are misunderstood.

We get a few Bishops who try to kick up the dust, such as those liberal Bishops in Germany right now. We get Bishops who even leave and form their own groups (the conservative Lefebvrites).

This tension has occurred for almost 2000 years in the RCC. Some Bishops settle down. Others leave. The RCC still exists.

Recently in the US, 59 Bishops signed a letter that said in essence (paraphrased): "we don't want to talk about politicians who call themselves Catholic and support abortion at the June Bishops' meeting." That was only 59 out of 271. The others will indeed talk about it and it remains on the agenda for that meeting.

You will hear or see quite a few op-eds out of the secular media, second guessing this June meeting: yet they do not have a clue about church procedures, church terminology and church teaching. So they will guess and write the most inflammatory headlines to get people to click on links, buy their papers or tune into their channels. Nothing changes in that regard.

The argument isn't that these sorts of disagreements and splits exist. Obviously they do. Every large-tent organization faces the same dynamics. Whether it is the Southern Baptists or Republican Party or the early church or Black Lives Matter. It is just human nature.

The question is whether these sorts of splits are due so some sort of conspiracy in which one side says "let's use the Hegelian Dialectic as a tactic to cause a rupture" or some such. That is what I would disagree with. Dissent and conflict is pretty much inevitable in any large group that mandates specific doctrine. Always has been and always will be. That is just human nature and not some conspiracy inspired by the writings of a relatively obscure 18th Century German philosopher.

[Bootstrap]

All these other churches are not the Southern Baptist Convention. If we really want to get into inside baseball and dirty laundry for a church, I suggest that Max start a thread on the Catholic church, which he knows better than the Southern Baptists. But seriously, aren't there better things for us to do here? Why is fact-free character assassination and tearing down Christian churches and leaders the best way to use our time and energy on a Christian forum?

I think Hegel is a red herring here. I think this is about people like Russell Moore, Beth Moore (not related), and J.D. Greear. According to Russell Moore, at least, this has a lot more to do with sweeping sexual abuse under the rug. We know this only because a letter he wrote to J.D. Greear was leaked. In his public statements, Moore seems to avoid asking people to take sides on this conflict, e.g.

https://www.russellmoore.com/2021/05/18/onward/

I don't think Russell Moore, Beth Moore, or J.D. Greear are progressives in any normal sense of the word. They are famous biblical teachers who stick pretty close to the text.