Rabbit trail theology

My honors class is studying Pietism and Puritanism in the seventeenth century, so we recently read Pia Desideria. I thought this was an insightful passage on the need for the right motives in studying theology:

"When men's minds are stuffed with such a theology which, while it preserves the foundation of faith from the Scriptures, builds on it with so much wood, hay, and stubble of human inquisitiveness that the gold can no longer be seen, it becomes exceedingly difficult to grasp and find pleasure in the real simplicity of Christ and his teaching. This is so because men's taste becomes accustomed to the more charming things of reason, and after a while the simplicity of Christ and his teaching appears to be tasteless. Such knowledge, which remains without love, "puffs up" (1 Cor. 8:1). It leaves man in his love of self; indeed, it fosters and strengthens such love more and more. Subtleties unknown to the Scriptures usually have their origin, in the case of those who introduce them, in a desire to exhibit their sagacity and their superiority over others, to have a great reputation, and to derive benefit therefrom in the world. Moreover, these subtleties are themselves of such a nature that they stimulate, in those who deal with them, not a true fear of God but a thirst for honor and other impulses which are unbecoming a true Christian. When people are practiced in such things they begin to have great illusions and introduce them at once into the church of Christ, even if they know little or nothing of the one thing needful, which they hold in little esteem. They can hardly be kept from taking to market what gives them the most pleasure, and they generally concentrate on something that is not very edifying to their hearers who are seeking salvation." (p. 56)

In which I offend all

Hello peep(s),

I return to the blogosphere with this eye-opening conclusion drawn from my current American history class: The American colonists were the original conspiracy theorists. Ok, so there were conspiracy theories before this point in history, but my statement would be a little less interesting if I acknowledged that, now wouldn't it be? The Americans made it a trend.

First, there's the Salem Witch Trials. Do I even need to elaborate on this one?

Next, there's the whole pre-revolution fiasco. Here I'm going to sound very unpatriotic. As Lemony Snicket said, you still have time to stop reading if you're afraid this will disturb you.

Still do.

Stop. Do it.

Ok, you were warned, my social conscience is clear. The way I understand it, the whole time period between the French and Indian War and the 1770's is pretty much a cycle of bad communication:

• The British try to run their empire more efficiently by passing seemingly innocuous bills.
• The Americans see red and convince themselves and others THAT THE BRITS ARE OUT TO GET THEM AND DESTROY THEIR WAY OF LIFE AND MAKE THEM INTO MEDIEVAL SERFS OMG TYRANNY!!! And you think I'm exaggerating.
• The Americans react and pass a bill in a colony's legislature declaring parliament's jurisdiction in the colonies illegal, or, more snazzily, dump a bunch of tea into a harbor.
• The British re-react and pass a more stringent series of "Acts," turning the whole thing into a power play, so, the Americans having created a self-actualizing prophesy, the cycle repeats itself.

Two concessions: Yes, the Americans should have had representation in order for the system to work, and yes, the British did hypocritically do a few things in the colonies that were illegal in Britania itself (I.e. 2nd Quartering Act). But the latter was after the Americans had almost driven them to it - they had to maintain control of their empire otherwise the whole thing would fall apart and actually endanger their lives. Beyond that, the tariffs the Americans had to pay were already in place in the rest of the empire, including the homeland of England herself. What was so special about that part of the empire that made them exempt?

Dare I say it? The colonists were being a liiiiiiitle bit dramatic. Rule #1 of history: Don't trust the propaganda. Case in point: The Boston Massacre, the name of which is even an exaggeration. Look it up, it wasn't what the revolutionaries made it out to be. But if Paul Revere had depicted the "snowball fight" and they'd just called it "The Butt-Kicking Several Smart Aleck Teenagers Got For Taunting An On-Duty Soldier," they probably wouldn't have gotten as many outraged people to join their cause. My reaction to them is fairly similar to the one I have when listening to the Fox News pundits pontificate on Obama's not-so-hidden communist agenda for absolute control of America. Really?

From here, we Americans perfected the art of conspiracy theorizing: JFK's assassination, the moon landing, the 9/11 Truthers....the list goes on and on. 

In the case that some of this information is less than factual, well, maybe there's a conspiracy amongst my professors.

Or maybe I just want you to think that.