Aug 6
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on the comments policies of his blog. This appeared on his Heidelblog.
It is certainly your prerogative to block or delete any comments you want. It is your right to censor the comments published here. But at least use this c-word in describing what you are doing especially when you so filter the comments to support your view and are selective in the evidence you cite when forming opinions about others and their ideas--like you do with socialism. BTW, you might want to add that you not only filter by what is consistent with the Reformed faith, you filter by what is consistent with conservative politics.
Your policies here are just a small part of why I disillusioned with the Reformed Churches by by fellow believers in the Reformed faith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 8
To Steve Berman and his blogpost on Ann Coulter and Kevin Brantly. This appeared in the restates website
I like what was said about Brantly. But I cannot share your assessment of Coulter. It seems that not only does she encourage a tribalism conservative Americans, there are indications that she also favors a collective narcissism--where normal people display narcissistic tendencies about a group they are involved with rather than themselves as individuals.
But it isn't just that. The way she disagrees with nonconservatives doesn't foster discussion; rather, it seems to purposely instigate animosity. And in that sense she acts as an entertainer who profits from riling people up. It is Christian to entertain that way?
This post is very good in how it supports Kevin Brantly with the mission and risks he undertook. Thank you for that. But as for Coulter, we need to realize that the measure of a person is not seen in how they interact with friends and like-minded people, but it is seen in how they speak to all others. This is where Coulter's conservative tribalism and desire to promote a collective narcissism around America conflicts with what the Scriptures would have her write.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 11
To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost on social justice and religious liberty. This appeared on Heidelblog.
I agree with the statement. But we should also note the past problems where people used religious liberties to deny others their rights. This occurred during Jim Crow. We cannot afford to defend such misuses of religious liberties.
In addition, it isn't that defending the rights of others is as important as helping the poor. It is that both of those is as important as sexual purity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 12
To Joe Carter and his blogpost citing an article that is against a national guaranteed income for people. This appeared in the Acton blog
We have a choice in an economic system that financially sacrifices people in order to maximize profits. We can call for the government to provide a guaranteed income or we can guarantee a growing poverty level. BTW, Martin Luther King was in favor of the first option.
When chosen by itself, I agree that the guaranteed basic income poses problems. It is a handout without empowerment. Thus, perhaps, instead of ruling out a guaranteed basic income, we should examine the different ways in which other countries are addressing this issue and see what changes we could make.
Finally, something I learned from reading Denmark's approach is that levels or classes in society are not always determined by income and healthcare as they are in America. There are other factors that distinguish classes of people such as profession and location. So there can exist other motivating factors for people to live by besides the fear of starvation. In addition, we should note the collective spirit needed for people of a country to care about the welfare of others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Sarah Stanley and her blogpost on the left's challenges to the influence on government exercised by corporations. This appeared in the Acton blog.
We're going to compare how Adam and Christ represented all of humanity with how corporations represent a group of people and we are doing this because we object to corporations being forced to expose their lobbying activities? And we are to accept the differences in money spurred representation in legislation between corporations with money and poor people who are without? Is that because we prefer the $1 - 1 vote system to the 1 person - 1 vote system.
It seems that the person cited, William Cavanaugh, is doing all he can to confirm what the Left has said about the Church. That the Church is just another institution of indoctrination to maintain the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost citing Hayek regard inequality and poverty alleviation. This appeared on the Acton blog
Basically, Hayek's view is that one must cater to the rich first before one knows what to give to the poor. So before we knew that the poor needed housing, food, and healthcare, only the rich had to have access to these luxuries.
My suspicion is that Hayek's views are written to protect the rich from living more like the rest of us and so instead of being told the truth, we are told that our welfare is tied to protecting and even catering to the rich first. BTW, what are the rich actually doing for us in this age of runaway wealth disparity?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost on Chesterton and Christians living as exiles in the world. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Christian engagement in the world is complex and nuanced. We are told to follow Christ and his presence in the world was because God loved the world. At the same time, we are told that to love the world is to not have the love of the Father. How do we reconcile those two ideas?
The idea of living as exiles can help but does not provide the full answer. After all, the Jewish exiles from the Old Testament had lived in the Promised Land, we haven't. So some of how the exiles lived can apply to us. But so can some of how the Hebrews wandered the wilderness can apply to us because they, like us, have not been to the Promised Land. Then we have Jesus who came as a suffering servant to imitate. But we also have his warnings against laying up our treasures in heaven and not letting life's worries, riches, and pleasures replace our faith.
From this all too brief survey of both sides of loving the word, an all too clear pattern emerges. We are to love and care for the people of the world while being detached from the sinful drives and pleasures that permeate the world. And perhaps the Church needs to not only provide a hope for after the world, it needs to provide a hope for helping the world too along the same values we use to love the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment