The Artful Dodger (Fair Use)
The Christmas Experiment
The Tepid Armstrongist Response to the Challenge of Christmas
By Scout
"Fagin will make something of you, though, or you'll be the first he ever had that turned out unprofitable." The Artful Dodger, From “Oliver Twist”
Armstrongism handles the issue of Christmas paganism poorly. There have been several posts on this blog recently related to Christmas. I contributed one of the posts. And these are the points that concern me:
Point One: “How do Armstrongists deal with the logical issue of the Genetic Fallacy?”
In simple terms, why does a pagan history, now renounced, render modern, unimpeachable practice wrong? Should we then ferret out and abandon everything that is pagan? My Quaker ancestors renounced the names of the days of the week. They went to First Day, Second Day and so forth. So, this issue is not confined to Armstrongists. But none of the responses to the recent posts from people who seem to be Armstrongist, that I have seen, attempt to answer this question. If once pagan means always pagan, does that not besmirch God’s Creation forever?
Point Two: “Armstrongists have no consistent methodology for determining what is pagan.”
You would think they follow this kind of methodology: “If it has any historical pagan associations, we will reject it.” But this would lead them to reject Thanksgiving and wedding rings, for instance. And they do not. This inconsistency leads me to believe that they really follow this principle:
Point Three: “If the Armstrongist leadership says it is pagan then it is pagan. If the Armstrongist leadership says it is not pagan than it is not pagan. And this is in spite of any empirical evidence or logic.”
I would like Armstrongists to respond to the three points above, at length. What we have received so far are parroted sound bites from the Armstrongist pulpit. Does this mean that their pulpit has no answers or does it mean that those people who participate in this conversation have never really understood their denomination’s belief on this? The data is yet inconclusive because responses have been so off target, it is as if they were written by the Artful Dodger.
The recent Christmas posts on this blog could be viewed as an experiment. The line of reasoning probes the phenomenon of why Armstrongists believe what they believe. And I have a hypothesis. The Christmas polemic here indicates that the most important source of truth and understanding for Armstrongists is their denominational authority figures. They lay aside research, science, logic, midrash and exegesis and follow the words of an authority figure. (This takes exception to James Tabor who, I recall, posited that Biblical rationale was the most important factor in belief among churches that exalted the Old Testament.) And what they know about Christmas only goes as far as what the authority figures have said.
I would like to generalize this to all of their beliefs but I think that would be unfounded. Because my hypothesis here, though simple, lacks good, broad empirical data. Moreover, getting at the data is a problem because when I was an Armstrongist, and I was one for decades, I thought I had good, tight arguments in my hip pocket for everything. I was ready to take on a Protestant at a moment’s notice. But this was because my beliefs inside the Armstrongist community were never challenged only reinforced. And I always stayed inside the community. A theologically astute Protestant would have eaten my lunch. I just didn’t know it.
203 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 203 of 203Here are the flaws in logic that have surfaced in the Armstrongist view of Christmas:
1. Genetic Fallacy – They do not look at the current content of Christmas but evaluate it based on its sources. This fallacy would also fault God for making at one time pagan Jerusalem his holy city.
2. The Chemical Theory of Paganism – Paganism is like a contaminating chemical and if it gets mixed into something then the mixed product is pagan forever. Its chemistry is immutable. This fallacy results in the absurd idea that some parts of God’s creation, such as a tree with ornaments on it, can become permanently contaminated with paganism and God can’t do anything about it.
3. The One Drop Theory of Paganism – For something to be adjudged pagan by association, its pagan association can never be too small. If in history there is just a whiff of something being pagan then it is fully pagan. The fact there are things that were pagan but the association is so small there is no recorded history leaves Armstrongists in a lurch. They won’t know if some of the stuff they do is pagan or not – right up to the day of judgement.
I would honestly like Armstrongists to reconsider Christmas. The lay members are mostly decent people trying to do what is right. Someone just gave them a bum steer and they have not only lived with the mistake but defended it.
With that, I am signing off of this thread. But, if able, I will see you around Christmas next year with these same concerns.
Scout
I was going to point out that the crazies are now mainstream. I had to reevaluate that when it suddenly occurred to me that there is no mainstream any more. This is the age of the bubble. Once most folks climb into their bubble, they never come back. They do, however, occasionally transfer to other bubbles.
BB
Here are the flaws in logic that have surfaced in the Armstrongist view of Christmas:
1. Genetic Fallacy – They do not look at the current content of Christmas but evaluate it based on its sources. This fallacy would also fault God for making at one time pagan Jerusalem his holy city.
2. The Chemical Theory of Paganism – Paganism is like a contaminating chemical and if it gets mixed into something then the mixed product is pagan forever. Its chemistry is immutable. This fallacy results in the absurd idea that some parts of God’s creation, such as a tree with ornaments on it, can become permanently contaminated with paganism and God can’t do anything about it.
3. The One Drop Theory of Paganism – For something to be adjudged pagan by association, its pagan association can never be too small. If in history there is just a whiff of something being pagan then it is fully pagan. The fact there are things that were pagan but the association is so small there is no recorded history leaves Armstrongists in a lurch. They won’t know if some of the stuff they do is pagan or not – right up to the day of judgement.
I would honestly like Armstrongists to reconsider Christmas. The lay members are mostly decent people trying to do what is right. Someone just gave them a bum steer and they have not only lived with the mistake but defended it. With that, I am signing off of this thread. But, if able, I will see you around Christmas next year with these same concerns.
Scout
Post a Comment