Why Trump?

Why could America elect Donald Trump to be the next President when there have been a plethora of red flags being raised and waving vigorously in the air. January 6, 2021 alone should have provided enough reason for not reelecting Trump, but it hasn't. If that had been tried during the 1970s, both parties would unanimously condemn such actions and prevent those involved from serving in government again. But that was yesteryear.

There are 3 reasons that I can see why we could elect Trump as President. That does not imply that these are the only 3 reasons. What follows are the reasons that I can see.

Reason #1

As a society, our thinking is more limited today than it was decades ago. That limited thinking is not due to a lack of intelligence, it is due to how we think. We should add that our limited thinking is self-imposed. Why and how? The how is because more and more of us have passionately embraced a form of all-or-nothing thinking called black-white thinking. We see things either one way or the other. An example is when then President George Bush told the world after that 9/11 attacks that people are either with us or against. us. What Bush was telling others was that it was either his way or the highway. It isn't issues that necessarily polarize us, it is passionately embracing black/white thinking that does.

Such thinking not only causes polarization, it is also the kind of thinking that authoritarian leaders dream of in their followers. Such leaders dream of such thinking because it makes their followers more susceptible to their desires. To disagree with an authoritarian leader often results in the being labeled as 'enemies.' 

We can go to Russia to see some past examples of such leaders. Both some of the Tsars and Vlad Lenin promoted this type of thinking. While the Tsars promoted the idea that because they were Russia. That how Russians treated them illustrated how they were treating their nation is an example of such thinking. And the same goes for Vlad Lenin only his identification was with the proletariat and the Revolution in the newly formed Soviet Union. \

And so today we have Trump, who previously called the Press the 'enemy of the people,' predicting that there will be utter disaster if he is not elected. In addition, he has told me and my fellow religiously conservative Christians that we will never need to vote again should he be elected.

How have we come to engage in such self-limiting thinking? It is because of people like Rush Limbaugh, who for decades, encouraged us to see all liberals as having nothing to offer or teach us and true conservatism as being the fount of all blessings. And because, like Trump, Limbaugh knew how to speak to a frustrated conservative audience, he could promote these black/white thinking in people which has caused today's polarizations in America.  And like Reagan, he could make such conservatives feel good about themselves and their political causes.

Reason #2

And just as we have limited our thinking, we have limited our ability to be fair and objective. And we should note that just like our limited thinking, this inability to be fair and objective is self inflicted. The moment that we let our loyalty go wild, we decided that we no longer  needed or even would be able to judge our own groups and other groups using the same standards and measurements. 

What has infringed on our ability to be fair an objective? As was just mentioned, it is when we allowed our loyalty to go wild. And when our loyalty goes wild, we take a black/white approach to loyalty. In this case we believe that loyalty can only be a virtue, and never a vice, so long as we are loyal to the right groups.

The more loyal we are to a group, the more resistant we are to the criticisms of that group until finally we passionately embrace moral relativism.That occurs when right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. We see this in authoritarian led groups where either the person or ideology is seen as being relatively omniscient. In other words, borrowing a phraseology from Martin Luther King Jr., we see this moral relativity when a group believes that it has everything to teach and nothing to learn from others. And so with becoming so loyal to a group comes the elevation of the pedestal on which we put that group. 

Reason #3

Many of us have seen a decline in our affection for democracy. And what has caused that decline is the materialism that comes from our consumer society. Once we've become materialistic,  then democracy, with equality,  is no longer seen as being important.

Of course in this election, it isn't just those who are marginally opulent who are hit hard by today's economy, it is regular people too. But the same principle holds. Once our economy crosses certain thresholds, democracy with equality is no longer seen as being an important value to cherish and hold on to. We want our economy fixed and fixed now. And with our black/white thinking, we will look for simplistic explanations and solutions to our economic problems. That is why Republicans pin the blame the past spike in inflation, which is over with, solely on government spending while the Democrats blame the previous spike in inflation solely on corporate price gouging. What is missing from both narratives is the simple economic roles that supply and demand plays on prices. In lieu of recognizing that our inflation may have had multiple causes, both Republicans and Democrats oversimplified what caused our spike in inflation.

And so we look for a magic leader who can immediately fix the economic problems we have been having. And that isn't the major problem here. Just as we are looking for an immediate solution, we become more willing to do without other  important things. So what if that magic leader needs more and more power to get the job done, as long as one's own economy is fixed, then all becomes forgiven. 

And so with today's Republicans, as long as they claim that they can "fix" the economy, immigration, and our other problems, who cares if we elect a person who tried to overthrow a fair election, who wants to be a dictator for "just" the first day, who has expressed strong admiration of dictators of the world like Putin, Erdogan, and Xi Jinping, and who has constantly and shamelessly lied throughout all of his Presidential campaigns?

We should also note is that the factors mentioned in those three reasons feed personal needs that we all have. The simplistic worldview that black/white thinking produces makes us feel more in control of what is going on around us. The excessive loyal to a group that we idolize makes us feel more significant because we belong to something greater than ourselves (see Fromm's The Authoritarian Personality) 

Not only have we heard warnings from those who served him during his presidency, we also have documentation from mental health experts some of whom are from prestigious universities (for mental health concerns such as Trump's narcissism, see The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump). 

In addition to that, we have history, however recent. Like that of President George W. Bush, the end of Trump's first term ended with America in shambles. It was in shambles because of  Trump's belligerent attitude and response to the nation's medical science community; and it was in tatters because of his his response to the election. His lawyers brought no court worthy evidence in the 60 lawsuits they filed. And when they failed, there was January 6, 2021. Trump himself had told the Proud Boys to 'stand back and stand by.' He advertised the event by saying that it was going to be a 'wild time.' He tried to pressure then Vice President Pence into shirking his Constitutional duties. He set up the whole conflict by claiming before the election that the only way he could lose would be by fraud. He is vowing revenge on his political opponents while claiming that the indictments and guilty verdicts made by ordinary citizens in grand juries and juries are political attacks.

If we refuse to listen to those warnings and if we ignore the recent past, we will be like Israel when, despite the prophet Samuel's warnings, they insisted on having a king (see I Samuel 8:10-22). And what prediction that Samuel gave did not come true?

Yes, Pro-Life is an important issue. But those hoping to manipulate the votes of religiously conservative Christians reduce being Pro-Life to abortion. This reduction of what is Pro-Life is another example of all-or-nothing thinking. In truth, neither the Democrats, with their legitimate concerns for the climate, environment, poverty, and social safety nets, nor the Republicans, with their legitimate concerns about abortion, are consistently pro-life.

Will we heed the warnings or will we provide yet another example of what Hegel said when he said that the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 11, 2024

 June 15

To Heidelblog and David Hall for the part of David Hall's articles (Part 1 and Part 2) that review what went on at the most recent Presbyterian Church of America General Assembly meeting.

It seems that's some labels have acquired unexpected implied traits. So is the case with the the conservative use of the labels 'conservative' and 'progressive.'

Conservatives seem to always imply infallibility when using the word 'conservative' and being fatally flawed with the 'progressive' label. And so, that reminds me of a Martin Luther King Jr. quote from his speech against the Vietnam War:

'The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.'

Because of their use of the above mentioned implied traits, conservatives appear to be replacing the word 'Western' with the word 'conservative' in the above quote. And so it seems that it is conservatives who are actually  putting themselves in an even a less flattering light than they intend to put progressives in due to the traits they imply when using those two labels.

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

Aug 3

To Heidelblog and Michael Wear and his article advertising his book that labels the political divisions in America and the Church 'Political Therapeutic Deism. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The full article can be found at:

    https://mereorthodoxy.com/political-therapeutic-deism

It is understandable as to why politics has a divisive effect on the Church. It is because, among other issues, politics deal with an array of moral values. And which political groups we most associate with can partially reveal the moral values about which we are most concerned. And our differences can arise from having different priorities of moral concerns people have.

But since no political ideology or party encompasses all moral values about which we should be concerned with as Christians, each political ideology and party are not only incomplete, but inconsistent as well. Take what is called pro-life for example. To reduce the meaning of being pro-life to concerns about abortion produces vast inconsistencies in what it should mean to be pro-life. Likewise, to not include concerns about abortion is to produce a deep inconsistency with what it should mean to be pro-life. And so which political ideology or party is consistently pro-life? And here we should note that being consistently pro-life does not mean that we have covered all moral issues with which politics is involved.

Since I am not now able to read the whole article, I will speculate as to what isn't covered that can explain what the writer wanted to explain. The divisions occur when we act like the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying (Luke 18:9-14) with our moral concerns. That occurs when we exalt ourselves over others because they don't share our priority of values or even values while neglecting to be even aware of the moral values that our own political views fail to adequately address. What James said in the second half of chapter 2 in his epistle also explains why we have divisions.

That Phariseeism is something to avoid almost at all costs. Why? Consider the plight of that Pharisee from the parable.

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

August 27

To Heidelblog and D.G. Hart whose article was quoted in part on HeidelBlog. His article  reviewed Tim Alberta's book: <I>The Kingdom, The Power, And The Glory</i>. Alberta's book is about the Evangelism and its recent political ventures.

Hart's full article can be found at:

    https://lawliberty.org/book-review/whats-left-to-say-about-evangelicals/

The trouble with Evangelicalism is, like Christian Fundamentalism, how it is defined. The original definitions of both terms focused on their religious beliefs. But then, because of the traits of some of its members, Evangelicalism's working definition began go deemphasize its religious beliefs and began to revolve around traits that had nothing to do with Evangelicalism's religious tenets just as what happened to Christian Fundamentalism.

As with  Christian Fundamentalism,  the change in the working definition of Evangelicalism was in part due to the desire of some Evangelicals to distance themselves from fellow Evangelicals because of their traits, in particular their political views. And so some Evangelicals decided to separate themselves because of their political disagreements rather than to simply admit that Evangelicals do not form a monolith. Had they done that, it is possible that Evangelicalism's working definition would still revolve around its religious beliefs.

History shows that Evangelicalism's venture into the political realm started decades earlier that what Hart claimed. It started with its opposition to the government's efforts to force racial integration onto some Evangelical institutions such as Bob Jones. What followed that became the focus on abortion. And what ignited the biggest Evangelical passion for politics was the 2015 Obergefell Decision by the Supreme Court. Since then, a concerted effort by a mixture of Evangelicals, Christian Fundamentalists, and Roman Catholics to '<b>take back</b>' America to its Christian roots has begun. Unfortunately, America's Christian roots were determined greatly by a demographics that no longer exists.

I can't speak to Hart's comments on Alberta's book since I have not read his book. But there are things about what Hart said that indicate that, like what a baseball catcher does with pitches, he is sometimes more interested in framing events and descriptions than being fair and objective. Take the following quote from Hart's article for example:'unpeaceful protests on January 6, 2021'

How is it that a violent action taken to overthrow the results of a legitimate election in an attempt to keep the sitting President in office can be legitimately described as being merely an 'unpeaceful protest'?

OR

'As dubious as the diversity rationale now appears—how could white Protestants be outsiders in white Protestant America?—the study of evangelicals coincided with the need to understand a new and vigorous electoral bloc, namely, the Religious Right. '

The problem with that quote is in the question asked. Instead of asking how could white Protestants be outsiders in a white Protestant America, Hart should have asked how did white Protestants BECOME outsiders?  In addition, curiosity about Evangelicalism might have been initiated by JFK's Presidential campaign and questions about whether he could be elected because of his Roman Catholic affiliation. Also, what diversity rationale is Hart claiming to be dubious?

OR

'The election of 2016 practically took all scholars by surprise (some needed smelling salts). It also gave legitimacy to scholarship that explained Donald Trump’s popularity among white evangelicals. Several evangelical scholars went to work to explain the racism, psychological instability, and misogyny that contributed to born-again Protestant votes for Trump. At the same time, evangelical leaders and pundits piled on with books of their own (for instance, David French, Russell Moore, and Peter Wehner) that show evangelicals to be hypocritical Christians and unreliable citizens. What used to be a success story of an obscure group rising to prominence in American life, evangelicalism is now one of the many social ills responsible for spreading illiberal sentiments among the American people.'

With Evangelicalism's ties to America's past which Hart mentions early in his article, perhaps America's history of racism also began to shed light on pathologies that exist in Evangelicalism. Here we should note that Hart is a historian, and yet he does not attribute any of the problems in America's racist past to Evangelicalism's present social standing.

IMO, if my fellow Evangelicals and Fundamentalists want to do well in politics, which is what Hart wants them to do, then they must see the current political battle in the West between Democracy with equality vs authoritarianism with hierarchy.  They need to see this distinction and understand which side that they are currently, and unfortunately, on. I hasten to add that how Hart sees Evangelicals and Fundamentalists would do well in politics could very well differ from how I see them doing well.

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

August 30

To Heidelblog and Chris Gordon for the part of Gordon's article that discusses why people reflexively follow Pastors who present themselves as omnicompetent. The title of the Heidelblog post is different.

Chris Gordon's complete article can be found at:

https://agradio.org/blog/the-cult-following-of-the-omnicompetent-pastor

I am not writing to disagree with anything that Gordon said. In fact, I agree with what he wrote. But I wanted to add something that might help us understand why, even in not troubling times, people are looking for authoritative sounding voices to follow. 

It has to do with what Fromm described as the passive authoritarian personality type, or the authoritarian follower to be less verbose. Such people are not just attracted to authoritative sounding voices, they are also looking for simplistic answers that they can understand. But most of all, they want a, what I call, nanny thinker who can tell them what to think. They want to listen to someone with whom they can reflexively agree.

Fromm said that the basic motivation for the authoritarian follower is fear. It can be a fear because of the confusion of the times. But the fear is more general than that. The fear comes from a need to be attached to something significant. And so the more authoritative a leader can sound or the more credentials a leader can portray themselves as having, the more personal significance can be gained by attaching oneself to that person.

One factor that can mitigate the fear that authoritarian followers can have is to become more independent in their reasoning. But a balance is needed here. That is because there is an authority figure who is omnicompetent to speak on all subjects. That is God. And He has spoken to us in His Word.  But what muddies the waters here is how does one interpret God's Word. We do have guides from the past and present, but they are never infallible and were often so influenced by their times that they sometimes read ideas into the Scriptures. And though there are issues in which there can be divergence in thinking among those who believe in Christ, there are other issues in which we can't afford to tolerate diverse views.

But the above introduces a complexity that many authoritarian followers cannot tolerate at the current time. And so the solution is to try to have ourselves and our fellow believers be more like the Bereans who tested everything by the Scriptures (see Acts 17). They both depended on the Scriptures and had a degree of independence so that they even tested the words of the Apostle Paul by the Scriptures. 

And so we need to move people to become a mixture of being dependent and independent. We need to be dependent on God's Word and independent enough from people, even the authoritative speaking kind, so that we can learn from them without reflexively accepting everything they say.

Tis The Year For Two Christmases

Every four years, we have Christmas twice a year. In fact, every four years we have Christmas on consecutive months. For each of those Christmases, we are presented with a portrayal of mythical characters who are said to bring us great joy by the gifts they will give us. These mythical characters appeal to children regardless of their actual ages. And for those Christmases, the heightened expectations for the coming of each of those mythical characters lasts for around a few months at the most as the gifts they promise rarely meet our expectations.

When we think about how those running for office appeal to us, Election Day becomes another Christmas because the candidates talk to us as if we're children. They seem to believe that all they have to do is to promise us the stars while painting their opponents as  a real life Grinch using language that an elementary school student could understand. And the reason why they do that is because it works--and that is on each one of us. Even if there are individuals who dislike such appeals, it works to varying degrees on most of us. 

In addition, because we Americans have, for the most part, refused to show that we are the home of the brave by refusing to vote for third party candidates, we end up with a choice between voting for the them candidate or the not them candidate where the best qualification of each candidate is that they are not like their opponent. And since the candidates from each major political party only have to show that they are not like the other candidate, the standards met by our 2 major Presidential nominees have been consistently dropping with each election.

And so we are constantly bombarded by political ads that show the candidates from the 2 major political parties speaking before adoring crowds. These crowds are so amorous one would think that these candidates are real life, messianic figures. But in reality, the candidates from both major political parties are merely playing the role of Santa Clause. And because we don't want to pay any more attention to the politics of our democracy than we absolutely have to, that suits us fine. 

Of course there are additional reasons why we get the political candidates that we get. It is because our politicians reflect us, the people whom they seek to serve, exploit, and/or rule over. George Carlin said as much when he said that selfish, ignorant voters elect selfish, ignorant public officials. And so if we want better candidates, we, as a society, need to curb our selfishness and work at becoming more educated and informed. Or as Martin Luther King Jr said, that we need to change from caring more about gadgets, profit motives, and property rights to carrying more about people. But good luck with that in a Consumer Society where, as King warned us against, we look to gain too much personal significance from our salaries and material goods than by how much we have helped those in need and have, in positive ways, influenced society.

One other note should be sounded here. While the Democrats campaign as being vanguards for those in the Middle Class rather than empowering workers and those in the lower economic classes, the Trumpublicans campaign on narrow self-interests and celebrating the lack of self-restraint. Our choice continues to be how I have described it before in at least one other time, that the working, not necessarily campaign, agendas of both political parties are putting us on a track to self-destruction. The difference between the two major political parties is that the Dems are acting like a local train while the Repubs are acting like an express train. And so the real difference between the two major political parties is which one will cause us to self-destruct sooner than the other.

What A Difference A Country Makes

Because of what has happened to some people we know, the wife and I celebrate each anniversary that is a multiple of 5 in a special way. A few years ago, the wife and I celebrated our 35th anniversary in Hawaii. This year, we celebrated our 40th anniversary with a trip through the Canadian Rockies.  And here we should note that the Canadian Rockies rival, if not surpass, the Mighty Poconos in height and majesty.

But as with Hawaii, what made me want to stay was the culture and the people. In Hawaii, I found that, though not perfectly, Hawaii does multiculturalism far better than the Mainland of the U.S. As we met many Canadians, I started to compare what I saw of Canada with the U.S. What became obvious to me was that Canada is civilized, while we Americans make up for that with arrogance.

An example of the comparison could be seen by observing that even most of the bicyclists there obeyed the traffic laws. Another example of the comparison came as I told some of the Canadians I met that I am jealous of their citizenship. They responded by saying that they have their own problems and seemed to have rejected the notion that Canada was a better place to live than the U.S. Had I been a Canadian who told Americans that I was jealous of their American citizenship, most Americans would say: 'Of course you are.'

It is our arrogance that will precede our fall as a nation. Our  arrogance will prevent us from learning from others. Likewise, our ignorance of how others do things maintains our arrogance. This means that our arrogance and ignorance are in a toxic, codependent relationship. And the toxicity poses a threat to all of us.

And yet, Canada does share some bad traits that are so prevalent in America only to a lesser degree. One such shared trait is that both harbor a Consumer Society. As consumerism becomes more entrenched in society, people's personal significance becomes more dependent on what and how much people consume. And so any significant inflation causes not just financial distress, but personal angst and thus a greater eagerness to hear simplistic explanations and proposed solutions. And in western Canada, many seemed to have expressed their frustration by calling the inflation they are struggling with, 'Trudeau Inflation.'

Though I am not familiar with all of the reasons why these Canadians blame Trudeau for inflation, but one of the reasons is that Trudeau's treatment of oil in Alberta, which included restriction on pipelines, and for the government's spending during the pandemic. But like the U.S., the sharp rise in inflation had more to do with post lockdown domestic and foreign supply problems and spikes in demand as well as global factors such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which affected the price of grain and fuel on the global markets. It is possible that Canada's pandemic spending was excessive. I know that American pandemic spending seemed not to be intelligently done.

The Consumer Society has had a real effect on how both many Americans and Canadians have interpreted the post pandemic inflation. It is has made both groups easy prey for opportunistic political candidates who have oversimplified the economic situation by scapegoating government spending for inflation. Certainly government spending during the pandemic might have had some effect on the economy, but that spending supported humanitarian concerns whose many potential problems went unrealized because of the spending. Again, supply chain problems, spikes in demand which occurred when the lockdowns ended, global markets that were affected by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the profit motive, especially for the oil industry, played a much larger role in inflation than government spending did.

If Canadians don't want to go the way of its southern neighbor in terms of its lack of civilization, they will not allow the consumer mentality that's gripped America to be as entrenched in there as it is here. Martin Luther King Jr. explained why in his speech against the Vietnam War:

'I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.'

In short, the more we become attached to material things, the less attached we are to people, especially to those in need.  After all, people in need often are perceived by some as a drain on society as government spending on them produces an imperceivable positive ROI. Actually, the real ROI on social spending is seen in an improved character of society as it both positively affects the moral character of society as well as increases chances for those in need to become self-sufficient. America is too entrenched in consumerism to care enough about those in need. And perhaps that our consumerism is one of the reasons why we lack Canada's civility.

But there is something else about consumerism that should be mentioned. As consumerism becomes more entrenched in society with each new generation, our desire for new things increases. And as that desire increases, it eventually gets so high that it can refuse to accept reality. And one possible result when desire refuses to accept reality is that people get delusions of entitlement. Examples of such entitlements include hoarding money, consuming without regard for those in need, and consuming without regard for the environment. 

That is where America is at right now which is why we can't admit our more than obvious flaws. Many Americans can't admit that human caused climate change is a fact. Many Americans can't admit that America was built on white supremacy and that we still have significant vestiges of white supremacy in society and many of our systems. Many Americans couldn't admit the seriousness of the pandemic and so America had one of the highest, if not the highest, death rates from Covid. And some Americans currently believe that their ideology/political party/religion/Presidential candidate are entitled to rule over our nation as a dictator. Consumer isn't the only driving factor in our delusions of entitlement, but it is a significant one.

 

Christian Nationalism Is A Marxist Christianity

Being a Christian Fundamentalist who politically leans toward Marx, I am interested in what other Christians write about Marx and Marxism. The most balanced view of Marx and Marxism came from Martin Luther King Jr in his book: Stride Toward Freedom.

In that book, written in the 1950s, King called Marxism evil and yet he agreed with the former Archbishop William Temple who called Marxism a 'Christian heresy.' By that, both Temple and King saw in Marx and Marxism concerns that every Christian should have but those concerns were joined with beliefs and practices that no Christian should ever accept. 

Contrast that with religiously conservative Christianity's current reviews of Marx and Marxism and some of its derivatives today. For most of today's conservative Christian reviews of Marxism and some of its derivatives paint all negative portraits of Marx and Marxism in that they present it as something to totally reject. It's like those reviewing Marx and Marxism today always take a Jenga approach to interpreting both. That is they look to disprove the one presupposition or tenet that would cause the tower of Marx, Marxism, and its derivatives to totally collapse. The attitude that those religiously conservative Christian reviewers of Marx and Marxism have reminded me of a quote by Martin Luther King Jr when he spoke against the Vietnam War:

'The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.'

And so if we replaced the word 'Western' with a fill-in-the-blank,  some religiously conservative Christians could have their names inserted into that sentence when they talk about Marx and Marxism.

However, a subset of these religiously conservative Christians are now seeking to respond to their current circumstances as Marx told the proletariat to respond to the bourgeoisie. And we can call that group of Christians 'Marxist Christians.' The group I am referring to here are Christian Nationalists.

Though Marx and Marxism cannot be reduced to a single tenet, its most foundational part, as stated in The Communist Manifesto, is the overthrow of the oppressor class, which was the bourgeoisie, by the oppressed, the proletariat. It is because Marx and Marxism taught that the only way to eradicate the oppression he witnessed was for the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie and to take the bourgeoisie's place as rulers over society.

And so now we enter today's Post Christendom's, Post Modern world where secular liberalism holds sway over American society and past Christian "freedoms," like the right to discriminate against some who are different, are not only threatened, but might become a reason for American society to marginalize religiously conservative Christians. Here we should note that secular liberalism isn't concerned with how Christians live their private lives; it is concerned with when Christians show intolerance to others in society. 

It is now time, according to the words of too many Christian leaders, influencers, and pew sitters, when we can expect to be oppressed by secular liberalism's influence on American society. For the talk by many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians is that if we are not being oppressed now, it won't be long when we will be. After all, that is what the New Testament says will happen to believers. And so what is an oppressed, religiously conservative Christian to do? According to Christian Nationalists, our "biblically mandated" duty is to overthrow secular liberalism with its democracy, equality, and pluralism and  Make America Christian Again (or MACA). 

The above provides the reason for why we can call Christian Nationalism a Marxist Christianity. By that I mean that Marxism, with its talk of the oppressed vs the oppressor and the proletariat dictatorship, is modifying how Christianity view itself and acts. BTW, Marxist Christianity stands in contrast to Christian Marxism because with Christian Marxism,  Christianity would modify how Marxism would function. And the reason why we can call Christian Nationalism a Marxist Christianity because it relies on the same model of thought that Marx and Marxism used: overthrowing the oppression of one's enemy by gaining political control over them. Our oppressor, according to Christian Nationalism, is the reign and influence of secular liberalism.  Therefore,  the only way that the oppression of secular liberalism can be resolved is if we religiously conservative Christians replace secular liberalism as the ruler over our nation. And the only way we can fix the problems that have been caused by secular liberalism is if we, not me personally, religiously conservative Christian seize political control over the nation either by democratic processes or other means--the January 6th Insurrection was an example of the attempt to grab political control through other means. By seeking to seize near total, if not absolute, control, Christian Nationalists are proclaiming to the nation that only we 'can fix it,' whatever it is.

Today's Christian Nationalism is ironic in more than one way. First, by claiming to be law and order people and claiming to be the rightful interpreters of The Constitution, Christian Nationalists have rallied behind a convicted felon and a man who inspired an unconstitutional overthrow of a duly elected government. 

The second irony is that by embracing the oppressed status, either because of present experience or anticipation of the future, and using that status as a main reason for seeking control, Christian Nationalism is practicing what it accuses ideologies such as CRT of employing: emulating Marx's oppressor vs oppressed worldview. It matters not if religiously conservative Christians are barely persecuted here in America. It is that anticipation of the future which is deeply shared by Christian Nationalists and even by others. 

And yet another irony is that while proclaiming itself to be a present or future oppressed class, Christian Nationalists are seeking enough power so that they can return to oppressing select groups of people. Because I lived during part of the Jim Crow era, I grew up during a time when many, but not all, religiously conservative Christianity persecuted blacks. And they used the Bible to defend their actions. Now Christian Nationalism seems to be promising to send the LGBT community back to the margins of society should they gain control and they are using the Scriptures to defend their attempts. 

Christian Nationalism is concerned about God's kingship over the earth. But it mistakenly believes that God's kingship can be politically thwarted by people. Such a belief either minimizes or denies God's plan and power. Because God is all powerful, He works out His plan regardless of our sins. In fact, He uses our sins to work out His will. That was the lesson taught by the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt. And it is the lesson that is taught in the crucifixion of Christ for the sins of those who believe in Him. In both cases, Pharaoh's initial refusals to let Moses's people go and Christ's crucifixion, it seemed like God was defeated. But He never was in danger of losing control. And that was shown when Pharaoh finally let the Hebrews go and when he and his army were killed in the Red Sea as well as when Christ rose from the dead. Those examples show that God doesn't need our political help to be king of the world. For He is already king over all that He created.

Comments Which Conservatives Blocked From Their Blogs For June 12, 2024

May 5

To R. Scott Clark and his article that talks about the real problems and conflicts behind the scenes of the world we live in. In that article, he made a questionable statement that described the status of our world. The article appeared in Heidelblog.

The least we can do when lamenting the problems of the day is to be accurate and fair. But both seem to be missing to some degree in the above article.

'Undergraduates openly calling for the slaughter of Jews, the widespread use of chemical abortifacients, the transgender madness (now magically embedded into Title IX, an act of Congress, by executive order), and seemingly unchecked crime and violence in American cities'

We should note that the first and last items of lament are exaggerations. How many undergrads are calling for the murder of Jews compared how many are protesting the slaughter of Palestinians by Israel's IDF. In fact, there is no concern for the plight of the Palestinians in Scott's article.

Regarding the last item, the FBI reported that violent crime, including murder was down in 2023 compared to 2022. Homicides were down 13%.

And scientists are discovering some physical causes for gender dysphoria. So how much of the transgender craze is really madness?

We need to be more accurate and fair in reporting the status of our world today. Failure to do so could hurt our credibility when preaching the Gospel

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

May 18

To Bill Reddinger and Part 2 of his two part series on Christian ideas that help us be  moderate in our politics. This appeared on the Heidelblog

Radical and Moderate, like conservative and liberal are relative measurements. For example, what was conservative in America during the Cold War was liberal in the Soviet Union. Therefore, being radical or moderate implies nothing about our views.

In addition, it's not whether a position is radical or not that is the problem, it is whether a person believe that they are superior to others to the extent that they believe that they have no need to listen to others.

There are at least 2 areas where this belief in one's own superiority takes place. One is intellectual superiority. This occurs when one believes that they themselves or their own group is so superior to others that they have no need to listen to others. They feel entitled to be the leaders. In fact, they get irritated when someone with different views tries to contribute to a discussion.

The other superiority is spiritual/moral superiority. Here a person believes that they themselves or their own group are spiritually and/or morally superior to others. Here, one can think of the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying (see Luke 18:9-14) for an example. Note how the Pharisee looked down on the tax collector. This sense of spiritual/moral superiority moves us try to silence those whom we dislike by discrediting them. When we feel spiritually/morally superior to others, we forget that neither is there a day when it is safe to pray like the Pharisee nor a day when we don't need to pray like the tax collector. When we think that we are spiritually/morally superior to others we forget how Romans 2 and James 2 reminds us that either we are in the same boat as the people we judge because we either commit the same sins that they do (see Romans 2) or we commit different sins (see James 2).

When we recognize our ties to others rather than believe that there are areas where we are better than others, it has a moderating effect both on what we say and how we say it. Recognizing our ties to others help keep our ideas more within the realm of reality and prevent us from being too radical in how we express those views.

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

To Heidelblog T. David Gordon and the part of his article on Tocqueville and his view of American exceptionalism which was quoted in Heidelblog. Gordon tries to show that Tocqueville had an ore negative view of America and its exceptionalism. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The article cited:

https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2023/10/alexis-de-tocqueville-and-american-exceptionalism-exegeting-tocqueville/

In the article cited by the above blog post, the writer reinterprets a Tocqueville statement on America from being a compliment to that of being a criticism. And thus America did not provide a positive reflection on democracy, a form of government and society which Tocqueville preferred. So America's exceptionalism was a negative indicator rather than a positive one.

If democracy means the 'rule of the people,' then how can one have democracy without equality? But if Tocqueville saw equality in America during that time, then he was overlooking the plight of Native Americans, blacks, and women, to name a few.

So if because we don't have equality, we don't have democracy, then what has America been since 1776? Jeff Halper's distinction between technocracies and democracies might help us what America has been and still is (see pg 74 of Jeff Halper's <I>An Israeli In Palestine: resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel</I>):

'<b>An ethnocracy is the opposite of a democracy, although it might incorporate some elements of democracy such as universal citizenship and elections. It arises when one particular group—the Jews in Israel, the Russians in Russia, the Protestants in pre-1972 Northern Ireland,  the whites in apartheid South Africa,  the Shi’ite Muslims of Iran, the Malay of Malaysia and, if they had their way, the white Christian fundamentalist in the US—seizes control of the government and the armed forces in order to enforce a regime of exclusive privilege over other groups in what is in fact a multi-ethic or multi-religious society. Ethnocracy, or ethno-nationalism, privileges ethnos over demos. whereby one’s ethnic affiliation, be it defined by race, descent, religion, language or national origin, takes precedence over citizenship in determining to whom a country actually “belongs.” Israel is referred to explicitly by its political leaders as a “Jewish Democracy.”</b>'

Halper's distinction between ethocracy and democracy adds more criticisms to America than what the cited article claimed that Tocqueville was giving to America at that time. That perhaps, Tocqueville didn't understand what democracy was about, which is quite understandable for his time. 

But we also need to add that because of Tocqueville's admiration for British society, perhaps Tocqueville was using British society as his canon for measuring how advanced a society is. That though Tocqueville saw the American experiment as being detrimental for any positive claims one would want to make about democracy because of the lack of advancement in American society, Tocqueville was being unfair in his evaluation of the American experiment. Tocqueville was being unfair because he took for granted Britain's age and thus its time to development vs America's. That is a point that the writer of the article directs our attention to.

Therefore, any conclusions about democracy in society cannot be confidently reached by the comparison of America to Europe. First, there was no equality in America and thus it was not a true democracy during Tocqueville's time. Second, Tocqueville was comparing a just born nation with nations that were middle age if not old. Their stages of development were in two different times.

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

May 19

To Russell Hittinger and his article on the failure of liberal humanism and the importance of basing a nation on Catholicism. His article appeared on the Imaginative Conservative blog.

If liberal humanism includes democracy with equality, then we must ask the question of whether liberal humanism has failed us or have we failed liberal humanism. For what we see when we look at when religion dominates society is a pervasiveness of intolerance and a domination of the other, of those who are different. At least, that is what Church History teaches us. And seems not to matter which branch of the Church is in control over a given region.

Those who call for the dominance of religion are like those who support Trump for President in 2024. For those who support Trump for President do so regardless of Trump's history. It matters not why they support Trump for President. It matters not whether they are true believers in Trump or they just oppose Biden, Trump left the nation in shambles when he was voted out of office.  Trump's bungled responses to Covid, his attempts to overthrow fairly elected new government, Trump's lies, Trump's racist descriptions of immigrants from South of the Border, his setting the future up for disaster by denying climate change, his divisiveness by denying systemic racism, his risking our future by his part in renewing the arms race, his threats to our nation's sovereignty by his friendships with and admiration of several dictators in the world, and his part in threatening our economic future by increasing deficit spending even before the Covid pandemic.

What does Church history tell us about religious dominance over a nation? It tells us of religious wars, inquisitions by both Protestants and Catholics, support for imperialism and colonialism, anti-Semitism, the acceptance of superstitions, and the oppression of those who don't believe. All of that was practiced during Christendom. Regardless of any contributions to the understanding of metaphysics, Church History does not speak well of religious dominance.

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

May 23

To David Hall and his article that calls the current protesters who are siding with Hamas the 4th Reich. This was posted on the Heidelblog website.

If the above is not hyperbole, I don't know what is. It isn't that Jewish anti-Semitism hasn't increased or isn't a problem. BTW, I believe that the ADL would tell us that Jewish anti-Semitism occurs in right-wing circles more than on leftist college campuses. But if the 2nd Reich had nothing to do with anti-Semitism, why should we name what's happening today the 4th Reich? Perhaps some so name this present time in order to incite fear and enflame fury against a favorite whipping boy in order to rally the troops.

We should note how the term anti-Semitism is wrongfully used. It is wrongfully used because it is selectively used. We should note that the Semite classification of people does not revolve around ancestry or race. The Semite classification is for people whose language comes from a specific group of languages. And therefore Jews are not the only Semites in town. Arabs, and that includes Palestinians,  and people from some African nations are Semites too. And yet, the term 'anti-Semitism is not used when prejudice and bigotry is expressed against Arabs or certain groups of people from Africa. Quite often prejudice and bigotry expressed against Arabs is called Islamaphobia. And do we associate the same shame that we do with Islamaphobia  as we do with anti-Semitism? BTW, one never has to worry about answering rhetorical questions.

By that, I don't mean that we should minimize what is now called anti-Semitism. But if we believe in equality, then we would either call prejudice and bigotry against any Semitic group of people 'anti-Semitism' or we would rank prejudices against other Semitic groups as being equally wrong as anti-Semitism.

BTW, something that is not well known amongst conservatives. Some of the most famous Pro-Palestinian college encampments are organized by a coalition of Jewish groups and other groups. That was the case at the Columbia University encampment which included an anti-Semitism workshop, Seder service, and, if memory serves, a joint prayer meeting. In addition, along with the encampments. increases in Islamaphobia have also been seen across college campuses. And so why wasn't that reported?

One final point, yes, Hamas is horrible. They want the land from the river to the sea for a pro Islamic Republic. And their means include committing horrific atrocities. But doesn't Modern Zionism want the same land, the land from the river to the sea, for its own people too? The Settlers I spoke to once outside a CUFI conference told me that they view the land that Palestinians live on as their, referring to the themselves, inheritance. Israel has sometimes denied the presence of its Occupation by asking how can one occupy its own territory. And during the Occupation, besides oppressing Palestinians, Palestinian land on the West Bank is being confiscated and annexed by Israel. And yet, none of that is reported by the above article.

Instead, the above article rightfully complains about those who support Hamas. But the same article neglects to report the full context of why some wrongfully side with Hamas. Instead, it seems to suggest that all of the pro Palestinian college encampments are pro-Hamas. Doing so is simply dishonest.

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

June 7

To T. David Gordon and his series of articles that opposes sending an overture regarding regarding transgender procedures for minors to the government. This was posted in the Heidelblog website.

Click here for Article #1

Click here for Article #2

Click here for Article #3

Just perhaps the WCF is the problem. I understand its position in Reformed denominations like the PCA. But when an argument is based solely on the WCF and not first on or even supplemented by the Scriptures, then doesn't that indicate that the WCF is put on too high a pedestal?

The problem I see with the WCF passages pertaining to the issue mentioned in the above article is that it prevents this portion of the Church from speaking prophetically to society and the state concerning corporate sin. Such produces a silence over perceived corporate sins. And as Martin Luther King Jr pointed out in his sermon against the Vietnam War, silence can be betrayal.

The problem I see in sending the above mentioned overture to the government--Civil Magistrate is an antiquated term--is that the Church has not put itself in the position to sufficiently understand the what science has to say about the issue. And so the overture can be based too much on ignorance even though I agree with the positive character assessment of the people responsible for the overture. And I would say the same about those who would support the above article.

We need to see that the Scriptures tell us to oppose sin, which is part of preaching the Gospel. The Old Testament prophets preached against the social sins of their time. And though we don't see much of that in the New Testament, one of the reasons could have been the context of that time. The average American citizen in today's world bears much more responsibility, due to our democratic form of government than citizens in the Roman Empire during the time of the Apostles.

By relying too heavily on the WCF in judging the sending of the Overture, we forget the disparity in the contexts of the time in which the WCF was written and now. To neglect that disparity in determining how the Church should interact with the government today is not a wise thing to do. Instead, adhering to the WCF 31.4 and other related passages in today's setting could indicate a blind obedience to the WCF and the placing of the WCF on too high a pedestal.

 

Is America A Donald Trump To The World?

As Americans, we’ve heard the claim over and over again: America is the greatest nation in the history of the world. The question has rhetorically been asked: What would the world be like without America? We brag about America ingenuity. And we call America the leader of the Free World. The last claim is a curious one since why would a free world need a leader and could a world with a leader be really free?

Or let’s compare the branding of products by both parties. ‘Made In America’ is proudly/pretentiously displayed on products made in this country with the implication that those products are superior to similar or the same products made elsewhere. Have we ever seen the TRUMP label proudly displayed not just on products that his businesses have produced, but on other products too?

Now we have a Presidential candidate who has claimed, in previous campaigns and during his Presidency, that he knows more about ______ than anyone else in the world. He has campaigned on the claim that only he can fix it—whatever it is. And he claims that Russia would have never invaded Ukraine under his watch.

In the past, America has acted unilaterally against those it sees as a threat and those that America claims have violated International Law. We should note that almost every single time, America doesn’t have to prove its accusations in any kind of objective, international setting. That is what is almost always meant by American Exceptionalism. That America is the judge of the world.

This America Exceptionalism assumes that America is not subject to International Law like the rest of the world is. And America will extend its self-proclaimed international immunity to its allies, especially Israel, because it can. In fact, America is now threatening to sanction the International Criminal Court because the Court seeks to put Israeli officials on trial for crimes against humanity over its actions in Gaza. Why can America do that? Because it says so. America can do whatever it wants because it assumes that it alone has the right, actually privilege, to operate by the Rule of Force, though American leaders rarely if even call it that. And it can do so,  rather than depend on the Rule of Law, because of its superiority to all other nations.

And when faced with a possible trial over the January 6 Insurrection of 2021, Trump and his lawyers claim that he should be immune to any criminal charges for any laws because he was President at the time. That the President should not be bound to our nation’s laws regardless of what he does as long as what he does is part of an official act. 

So do we see any similarities yet? If there are enough similarities between the two parties here, does the narcissism in one party mean that there is narcissism in the other? Does the belligerence in one party imply belligerence in the other? Does it follow that if there is arrogance in one party, then the other party is arrogant too? And if one party acts as an authoritarian ruler, is the other party far behind? Are the similarities between the two parties a coincidence or a cause and effect? Do we understand why Trump appeals to his MAGA followers?

If you are annoyed by Donald Trump or even feel threatened by the possibility of his reelection, can you understand why many parts of the world feel the same way about America? Certainly our allies don’t necessarily feel the same about America as many Americans feel about Donald Trump. At least their leaders do not express that kind of irritation. Some, if not many, of the citizens under those leaders may feel that way, but their leaders are silent. Their silence should remind us of what Martin Luther King Jr. told us in his speech against the Vietnam War when he told us that sometimes, silence is betrayal.

Is what America is to the world what Trump is to America? MAGA followers would celebrate such a comparison. For many of the rest of us, even considering the comparison would be a heart attack to our corporate self image. Of course, the first step in recovering from a problem is to admit one has a problem.

So we should note that during Trump’s Presidency and if he is elected again, karma can be a bitch. ‘That what goes around, comes around.’ That those who believe in American hegemony and exceptionalism have no one to blame but themselves should Trump wins the 2024 Presidential election and rule America the way he wants to. And if Trump escapes criminal sanctions for the crimes he has committed, karma can be a bitch. After all, when has America ever allowed itself to be accountable to the world for its actions? For it seems that Trump is 100% made in America. And so, just perhaps, for some Americans, the realization of what America has been and still is to the world will never be adequately realized until we suffer through an authoritarian Trump government when the gains made in equality for certain groups are thrown away into the ash heap of American history.

Karma can be a bitch, but it doesn’t have to be.