Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 5, 2015

July 29

To Denny Burk and his blogpost on abortion and one woman's brief account. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.

Denny,

Your blogpost here is good, but the title is a little misleading. Itisn’t the sex life that is at fault for the abortion itself, it is the failure to recognize the intrinsic value of each human life that is the problem.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 30

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote stating that even pagans understand that same-sex marriage is wrong. this appeared in Heidelblog.

Of course, this 'even pagans understood' cuts both ways and this should be important for those who would be interested in not becoming the pharisee from the parable of the two men prayed.

Even pagans understand the injustices from an economic system that uses a flag of freedom as a cloak for greed. Even though his solutions were left wanting, Marx understood this. So did my brothers and sisters at Occupy Wall Street. And because of those injustices, even pagans understand the need to speak out even if those who cry out look less appealing than Balaam's donkey. 

Even pagans understand that our modern way of life is destroying the parts of the environment that makes life possible. Even pagans understand that it would be wise to seriously consider what the vast majority of scientists have to say on this subject. And even pagans understand that to halt the destruction of the environment while helping those who are impoverished, we must learn to share more with others while perhaps making due with less for ourselves.

And even pagans understand that, if we continue to rely on war and militarism, WMDs will eventually be used  and then be used on a more frequent basis endangering the lives of those who follow us. And even pagans understand that patriotism can be a gateway association that promotes a moral relativity that defines right and wrong by asking who does what to whom.


We so focus on the sexual behaviors of others that horrible sins of both others and ourselves are easily flying in under the radar, that is if there is any radar left which is not devoted to detecting sexual sins. Yes, we need to speak out against sexual sins. But does that mean that we should marginalize those whose sexual sins we find intolerable?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 31

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on a Biblical view of human authority in particular as it applies in the home. This appeared in Heidelblog.

First, you have a spelling error at the end of the following line:

"This is an area where Christians have an opportunity to be distinct from the prevailing culture both both by respecting the creation order and by showing hey"


Second, there are things we can learn from the current limited egalitarianism that is a part of our culture. But before we discuss that, we need to discuss when to push a  Biblical complementarian perspective. Certainly we need to push that in the Church and fellowship groups. And when we need to push that when we teach the Bible to others. Pushing it at home depends on whether we have married a believing wife and if so, would our current church support that. But what about expecting society to adopt such an approach?

Some would argue that we should insist that society follow the Biblical model. But to be consistent, we would have to repeal the First Amendment that talks about the freedom of religion. Should we fear egalitarianism in society? I would have a bigger fear of society pushing an unbiblical form of hierarchy regardless of who is granted superiority.

If the government is to recognize each person as being equal in society, then what is wrong with the current egalitarian approach outside of possible restroom confusion? And what if we, in our roles of heads of the house, treat our wives as being equals while still making the final decision on certain matters? See, that treating our spouses as equals can be an expression of love and respect. In addition, recognizing where our spouses are superior to us outside of gender stereotypes can be a further expression of love and respect. Even Adam Smith knew that too strict a division of labor has a dumbing down effect. Is that what we want our spouses to experience?

Again, I think we should welcome the egalitarianism promoted in society. We can certainly live around that at home and in our churches. And we need to distinguish what we should allow for society to follow from what we would preach people to follow as private individuals.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aug 2

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote about abortion and choice. This appeared in Heidelblog

The real issue with abortion is not choice. The real issue is what, if any, intrinsic value does human life have. For if the only value is conferred, then we are all at the mercy of those who have the power to grant or take away our value as people.


At the same time we must realize that the practice of abortion is not our society's only institution that acts as if human life has no intrinsic value. The Free Market, our Neoliberal Capitalism, and our penchant for militarism and war all act as if human life has no intrinsic value.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 3

To Victoria Sweatman and her comment of around July 24 stating that neither history nor the Constitution support same-sex marriage. This was part of the discussion on the blogpost about the Obergefeel v. hodges decision. This appeared on the First things blog.

Victoria,
Actually history is replete with same-sex couples and has more examples of such marriages than we care to admit. So your point doesn't make the comparison specious. Think about the opposition to racial equality that has remained entrenched for centuries in our own nation.

And what does the Constitution say about this matter? First, we have a freedom of religion such that the religious views of some cannot be forced on all. Second you have the 14th amendment that says you cannot discriminate in the administration of laws. And that is what we had in terms of marriage. Heterosexual couples were allowed to enjoy a one-to-one union that same-sex couples could not. That the one-to-one partnership was a complete union prevents the slippery slope which some fear. That union, which cannot be replicated in any kind of partnership, joins one consenting adult and all that they have to another. Those who argue otherwise are fixated on the sexual union part of the relationship.

Also, if you are going to say that my reasoning is weak, you have to present more grounds than to say some people disagree.
Finally, to draw conclusions about the high prevalence of open relationships and other motivations in the LGBT community without considering the context would be an unacceptable way of drawing conclusions in any kind of research endeavor. What most of us are out of touch with is the degree of marginalization those from the LGBT community have experienced on a personal level for most of their lives. To not consider context when drawing conclusions about behavior would not be acceptable in any kind of scientific endeavor to study any subject.

And if you to question my view about the comparisons between same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage with same-sex marriage vs any other arrangement, you will have to be more specific in order to make your point.

The real issue is that some of us religiously conservative Christians who hold to traditional marriage in the Church have a personal antagonism against same-sex marriage in society which is not shared by the rest of us religiously conservative Christians who agree with God's Word about traditional marriage but who believe that same-sex marriage should be allowed in society. I think it is time that those Christians who have such an antagonism need to more honest and up front about it. 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on submitting to those in authority. This appeared in Heidelblog

Something should also be noted about these verses that tell us to submit. That is that they were written before the Gospel had been spread around the world, before Christianity had been associated with particular governments, and before democracy. There are times to resist, but we must note that even then our resistance should reflect our faith in Christ.

When Martin Luther King Jr contemplated how to respond to unjust laws, he had to balance 2 issues: injustice and submission to authorities. Following Augustine, King asserted that an unjust law is not a valid law. At the same time, King was against what is popularly called anarchy and wanted to recognize those who were put in authority. So when he and those who followed him broke the law to show the injustice of the laws back then, he and his followers submitted to arrests and jail time and he advocated that they do so without bitterness and without verbal violence.

Was King wrong to break the law to illustrate injustice? I don't think so  And when we consider the association between the Gospel and the unjust laws he was responding to as well as the association between the Gospel and passivity to the harsh injustices back then, to take King's approach honored the Gospel more than mere submission to the laws because instead of being merely concerned with one's own personal righteousness in following the law, by addressing injustice, he was reaching out in love to those who were 
oppressed. And that is an important point missing in the discussion of how we should honor and submit to authorities. And considering that our democracy puts more tools and privileges into our hands to address injustice, then we see that today's situation involves a different stewardship call in how we relate to those in authority from back in the first century when there was no democracy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 4

To Joe Carter and his blogpost Criticizing Dan Price, the CEO who is starting a multi-year program that will eventually raise minimum salaries for his employees to $70k. This appeared in the Acton blog.

It seems like the biggest problems Price is facing for his plan to raise salaries to a minimum of $70k are not market problems but personal problems on the part of those who object. From his brother who is suing him to disgruntled employees who are envious to unsure customers, breaking with convention by paying people more shows why we need to look in the mirror and examine ourselves. It also shows that the free market isn't as free as we are led to believe. For look at the backlash Price is receiving before his experiment has a chance to be tested by the "Free Market."

What will be most interesting, but also predictable because of past precedent, is the lawsuit by Price's brother. After all, who are the employees that they should be recognized as having "earned" more of the company's profits than what some owners want to grant? After all, without the employees, there is no production of products that produce profits. None. But such shows the ownership mentality of some and their views of their employees. 

In the meantime, here is Joe Carter telling Price that if he read the parable about the vineyard owner (see parable of the vineyard owner ) before deciding to raise wages, he could have saved himself time and trouble. After all, it is the hired hands from that parable who tell us what happens when envy has its way and obviously Joe Carter's Free Market is based on envy. Of course, in cheering on the hired hands from Price's company (a.k.a., the disgruntled employees who are objecting to the raises others are receiving), Carter seems to be showing greater affection for today's hired hands and his free market than he does for the vineyard owner from parable and the lesson He was teaching. Does Carter even know who that vineyard owner is? Does he know the lesson that comes from the parable?

So the last will be first, and the first will be last.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost containing a short animated film and explanation on, from one example, since there is cooperation between two major department stores that cooperation is the rule in Capitalism and thus no central authority needs to oversee it. This appeared on the Acton blog.

So much is implied from such a little example and using little examples as an apologetic seems to be the habit of those who defend capitalism. One only needs to look at the history of news media and the number of corporations who have owned news media or the number of big banks today vs yesteryear to realize that this idea of cooperation is not necessarily germane to today's Capitalism. And one only needs to look at the causes of the 2008 economic collapse to realize what can happen when there is a lack of federal oversight when big money is involved.

When many Americans look at Capitalism, they only see what happens to them and those they have contact with. They are unable to see the bigger picture because either they refuse or neglect to notice all of the stakeholders involved in the system. Human trafficking is a significant problem in our agriculture sector. And even when that is not involved, trade agreements and foreign policies involving military interventions with the subsequent installment of proxy leaders has been part of our economic system. The current consolidation of wealth and the growth of poverty is also a part of our economic system. But primarily, the objectification of workers and relegating them to a state of being disposable is a fundamental part of our Capitalist system. And seeing how those in the lower economic classes suffer the most during times of collapse while those in the higher economic classes benefit the most from recoveries shows the direction of our economy. In fact, perhaps those defenders of Capitalism would like to explain why there are so many more empty homes than there are homeless families.

.