I have to agree with De at the Thinklings, that Jim Nicholson from the Boars Head Tavern hit a home run with this post. Jim begins:
There are two fundamental errors we need to be careful to avoid.
The first, and more obvious one, is to disbelieve the reality of depravity.
The second, and more insidious, is to believe that "total" depravity is "utter" depravity.
A good thought, but not unique or brilliant, just a good, carefully nuanced statement about what is meant by the notion of "total depravity." Where the post gets brilliant is in his application of the doctrine to some current issues. In doing this I think Jim gives us one of the best examples of applied theology I have seen in quite awhile. He says;
It is, in my view, a fundamental error to believe that depravity means that everyone is essentially selfish to the point of disregard for other people or for the rest of creation in every circumstance. This error is seen in contemporary American politics on a daily basis; the result of it is that flawed people like Bill Clinton aren't seen as just flawed people, they become monstrous predators; flawed people like George Bush aren't seen as flawed people, they become tree-eating baby killers. Dick Cheney can't just be a guy who had a hunting accident, he has to be the center of a vast duck-winged conspiracy to kill lawyers with birdshot. It never occurs to anyone anymore that those on "the other side" of the aisle, or of the question of the moment, are merely wrong, they must be either evil, or stupid, or both. (Cf. Krauthammer's observation.)
That is an excellent observation and application of the truth of total depravity. Total depravity doesn't mean utter depravity. It means that everything we do is tainted as sin, it doesn't mean that we are always as evil as we can be.
Along with this observation on the nature of depravity, throw into the mix the fact that all men are created in the image of God and that God pours out His common grace on all of creation and you have a situation where we are all a pretty much mixed bag and where in most cases no one is as good as we think or as bad as we fear.
I thought of one other application of this that relates to a matter that has been floating around the blogosphere of late.
My (conservative) friends Dignan and Joe Carter have recently thrown Ann Coulter under the bus of conservativism and have urged other kids on the conservative playground not to play with her. Dignan says she is Conservativism's #1 enemy and Joe says that conservativism deserves more civility and less Coulter.
I have never seen Ann on TV and haven't read any of her books. I may have read a half dozen or so of her columns on the internet so I know little about her, except to say that, from the little reading of her I have done and from Dignan and Joe's comments it appears that the schtick that gives her fame is her constant vilification of her political/ideological opponents.
In the interest of full disclosure I am a conservative so my views would align very closely to hers in many ways, I am sure. But she does take things a good deal further, in that she is not content to say that her opponents "are merely wrong, they must be either evil, or stupid, or both" (see above).
Maybe one part of the cure four Coulterism would be for Ann and her followers to consider the difference between total depravity and utter depravity, and stop engaging people on the basis of utter depravity. I am told that Ann has at least visited, maybe she attends regularly, Redeemer Pre in Manhattan. If so, surely she has heard the gospel and hopefully has had the chance to learn a little biblical anthropology, which refers to the biblical doctrine of the nature of man. Hopefully, if she continues under the preaching of the gospel this can help her avoid the errors that these folks speak of.
But whether or not Ann changes her ways Jim's post is still a helpful reminder to all of us about how we can engage debate from a sound theological point of view.
Related Tags: Current Affairs, Politics, Politics & Society, Religion, Theology, Reformed Theology, Calvinism, Depravity, Total Depravity, Ann Coulter
Interesting about Coulter. In my more polemical days, I loved Ann. Read her books, made sure to catch her on Hannity & Colmes, etc.. And there's a place for her in political commentary as a unique and entertaining character, more satire than serious... but I agree that we in the church are not to treat each other that way, not even remotely.
Posted by: Zeke | February 22, 2006 at 12:52 AM
My dictionary gives the synonyms "absolute" and "total" for 'utter', and "complete" and "utter" for 'total'. As a result, the fine distinction between 'total' and 'utter' depravity has become utterly and totally uncertain. It's no wonder Mr. Nicholson calls it insidious. The city of Complexity is a haven for theologians, too.
Posted by: Former Corn Chuckin' Champ | February 22, 2006 at 01:29 PM
Without disagreeing, I tend to think of depravity as kind of an "equalizer" -- comparing ourselves to holy God versus comparing ourselves to each other
Ann Coulter, by the way, is much funnier than a stack of Mohammed cartoons.
I like Anne and I consider her more of a humorist than commentator (kind of what Zeke said). She tends to express herself in a way that what she says seems like a self-evident truth. She does enjoy the reaction she gets from the outrageous statements she makes. You can't always take her literally. But sometimes she surprises. I especially liked her columns against the Harriet Miers nomination.
Posted by: invadesoda | February 24, 2006 at 02:17 AM
A very timely and concise piece.
I was defending the notion of depravity a couple of days ago over at Faith Commons, an emergent church web hub.
You've highlighted an important distinction between total and utter depravity.
Yet with this being said I would still argue that all unbelievers (i.e. "the lost") are actively evil since one (by default) is either advancing the kingdom of God by serving Jesus Christ as Master, or standing against the advancement of the kingdom of God by serving Satan as master.
There is no middle ground.
Posted by: Soup | February 24, 2006 at 07:52 AM
I think it is a good thing to point out that total depravity does NOT mean that man is as bad as he could possibly be. What it DOES mean is that sin has invaded every fiber of man's being, to his very core.
Yes, even lost people can do "good" things and have "good" intentions in relation to their fellow human beings on this planet. But Total Depravity does not address this. Total Depravity addresses our standing before a holy and just God.
An unjustified sinner may still be able to perform acts of kindness toward his fellow man, but he is at war and at emnity with his holy Creator...and that translates to utter hopelessness.
Posted by: Brian Thornton | February 24, 2006 at 09:32 AM
Keep in mind that the doctrine of total depravity has another key component to it - man is depraved to the point where he can not turn to God without God moving him to do so. This is essential for a Calvanistic worldview. For better or worse...
Posted by: Wonders For Oyarsa | July 17, 2006 at 02:44 PM