The historical links between Protestantism and the secular liberal tradition are undeniable. If anything, the problem with elucidating the connection is not that it's not there but that there is so much of it that it's hard to write a decent explanation thereof even if you have a whole book to do it in. James Kurth, since he's writing a short-form piece, has an even bigger problem to overcome. His overly linear explanation, which tries to put all of Protestantism into six dubiously-ordered bullet points, is perhaps a consequence of this problem. Methodists are not just Calvinists who accidentally decided that works are important; that would be a very silly way to look at it.
It may be that this is an issue ideally suited to blogging, because the blog format allows for partial theses, to be elaborated on later. Small linkages can be demonstrated without needing to stand in for the entire messy whole.
Very good, Damir! One comment: to understand the Bible’s importance to a Protestant America long past the King James is an appropriate reference. To understand the Bible’s significance to modern Protestant America, the King James is almost irrelevant. That is to say it’s not popularly read, nor are theologians working from it.
I’ve got a copy of the ESV and the NASB as well. KJV I’m reading just for the sheer pleasure of discovering how many literary commonplaces are lifted from it.
Was catching up on old pods today and heard you mention this.
I’d love to point you The Message - a translation by a very thought provoking and influential Protestant theologian and writer named Eugene Peterson. Some people call it a paraphrase instead of a proper translation, either way it’s meaningful to understanding much of the current context.
Damir, you're going to be an important and influential writer some day, so it's important you know this: "reference" is a noun, not a verb. You should have said: "I've clumsily referred to Max Weber's thinking ... " or "I've clumsily made reference to Max Weber's thinking ... "
Thanks, Paul, it wasn't a joke, but I've since learned that recent dictionaries allow it. So I guess I'd now say it's admissible but inadvisable, since it offends my ear. (And would probably have offended Ruskin's, Morris's, Wilde's, Shaw's, Russell's, Conrad's, Woolf's, Lawrence's, Forster's, and Eliot's.)
I agree, and your thesis receives book-length support in sociologist James Hunter's recent Democracy and Solidarity.
Fantastic, will read!
The historical links between Protestantism and the secular liberal tradition are undeniable. If anything, the problem with elucidating the connection is not that it's not there but that there is so much of it that it's hard to write a decent explanation thereof even if you have a whole book to do it in. James Kurth, since he's writing a short-form piece, has an even bigger problem to overcome. His overly linear explanation, which tries to put all of Protestantism into six dubiously-ordered bullet points, is perhaps a consequence of this problem. Methodists are not just Calvinists who accidentally decided that works are important; that would be a very silly way to look at it.
It may be that this is an issue ideally suited to blogging, because the blog format allows for partial theses, to be elaborated on later. Small linkages can be demonstrated without needing to stand in for the entire messy whole.
Very good, Damir! One comment: to understand the Bible’s importance to a Protestant America long past the King James is an appropriate reference. To understand the Bible’s significance to modern Protestant America, the King James is almost irrelevant. That is to say it’s not popularly read, nor are theologians working from it.
I’ve got a copy of the ESV and the NASB as well. KJV I’m reading just for the sheer pleasure of discovering how many literary commonplaces are lifted from it.
Was catching up on old pods today and heard you mention this.
I’d love to point you The Message - a translation by a very thought provoking and influential Protestant theologian and writer named Eugene Peterson. Some people call it a paraphrase instead of a proper translation, either way it’s meaningful to understanding much of the current context.
Damir, you're going to be an important and influential writer some day, so it's important you know this: "reference" is a noun, not a verb. You should have said: "I've clumsily referred to Max Weber's thinking ... " or "I've clumsily made reference to Max Weber's thinking ... "
That's all. Carry on.
Perhaps this is an inside joke, but otherwise: no, 'reference' can certainly be a verb. See the third definition here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reference
Thanks, Paul, it wasn't a joke, but I've since learned that recent dictionaries allow it. So I guess I'd now say it's admissible but inadvisable, since it offends my ear. (And would probably have offended Ruskin's, Morris's, Wilde's, Shaw's, Russell's, Conrad's, Woolf's, Lawrence's, Forster's, and Eliot's.)