Good for you, Grant Hill. But there's some real tension here culturally, isn't there? Cultural expressions that in themselves are real and valid, but expressed more widely do belie an anti-white, anti-intellectualism. Anti-white feelings are totally understandable, even if I think most black Americans are trapped politically and culturally by a revisionist history and victimology. But of course I would say that; I'm white and privileged. But anti-intellectualism is bad. Still, to what extent does "blackness" require hostility to the prevailing culture? To what extent does that culture reflect the pressure to homogenize, [sp?] which is itself a racist impulse? Or is it? Paging Anthony Bradley! This is the post I wanted to write last week; I was so mad and irritated at the good doctor that I wanted to egg his house and write "VIVA GOLDWATER!" all over it. (But seriously, I love Goldwater. I'm sad he lost. Mostly.)
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
Comments