The funny thing here is I am a Christian and I do not see what Faith sees in Crowley's work. I am, however, extremely different in my sense of morals and views from those Crowley is talking about. I didn't think she "lumped" all Christian's together in one category, since she was very specific to define Apocalyptists. I find what she has to say quite important, and very perceptive.
I think her argument goes to the way people of differing value systems and beliefs, even among Christians, makes it difficult for true arguments to evolve. Crowley states, "That is to say, argument minimally requires an advocate to acknowledge that his or her claim is controversial. Ethically speaking, if participants in a dispute do not formulate the position about which they disagree, the necessary respect for an other may not be in play, and neither the conduct nor the outcome of the argument may be just" (29). It is the ability to argue, discuss, and respect the views of others I believe she is talking about. It is difficult to argue with one who is so extremely tied into a system of beliefs that ideas and concepts unlike their own are unacceptable. Respect of those opinions is what is necessary, and beyond that the ability to speak up despite the disrespect that may thrown the way of those who choose to speak up.
I think, and I could be wrong, that what Crowley is getting at is the fact that reason within argument will not work within a very passionate argumentative setting. We need to learn to "use" emotion along with reason in order to invoke a more powerful argument. I do not think that Crowley is simply stating that all Christians are unable to see more than one point of view, but there are those who aren't able to do so, and that using passion as a part of their argument they have become extremely influential and difficult for "reasoning" liberals to argue with. I think it's a good point.
5 comments:
I think if Crowley got to know us (or any Christians) she would see that there are a lot more like us rather than like the apocalyptists. But despite Christians like us, she posits that the apocalyptists have gained control of the hegemonic discourse. That Crowley uses extremists to make her point is a problem precisely because OF COURSE those extremists aren't interested in rational argument -- as a rule, extremists aren't. I say that Crowley's argument stands on the shaky premise that Christianity is radical, single-minded political party aimed at turning the country into God's Kingdom on earth, as opposed to a diverse group of people with varying interests (like Maggie and me).
Maybe this is obvious, but I'm pretty doped up on sickness and the medicines I'm combing to treat said sickness.
The problematic issue here seems to be that OF COURSE the extremists get more exposure because they're extremists. Whereas, kind and lovely folks like Maggie and Faith don't get written into nearly as much arguments, because they, in fact, are fairly rational. It's rarely the Muslim community that gets vilified, but rather, the fundamentalist sects of said community.
I don't know if you would get Crowley to admit (in public) that all Christians are insane right wing crazies...simply because it's pretty common knowledge that they aren't. However, they are the ones who get the most press coverage...while I won't claim to be a believer in the Monkees sense, I can certainly see where, to the average non Christian, the coverage that you folks get can be pretty damning. What we don't see nearly as much on our news is the kind-hearted, non judgmental sorts...
Maybe I'll see you all Monday...
I agree, Aaron, and that makes it even worse. It's like saying that all 25-year-old females are materialistic and image-obsessed because Paris Hilton is. It just shows Crowley's overestimation of the importance, influence, scope of people who in the real world aren't all that influential.
*nods sagely*
Maybe it's the fact that I'm not a Christian myself that I don't see Crowley lumping Christians together. Actually, not "maybe"--I think the Christian/non-Christian divide is a big stumbling block--in Crowley, in the blog discussion, etc.--stasis has *not* been achieved in this regard. I'll point to the passage I mention in my blog post and in another comment--it's on pages 6 and 7--where Crowley outlines which Christians she is concerned with: in short, fundamentalists who wish to bring about theonomy.
I will admit, however, that from the Preface on I knew this would be rough waters. The fact that Crowley knows it, too, and foregrounds her own orientation, is at least worth mentioning.
Post a Comment