To Rev. Ben Johnson and his blogpost on Frank Bruin’s take on the Charlottesville protest. In that review, Bruni is said to have embraced identity politics. This appeared in the Acton Blog.
The problem with this article is the same problem that followers of Lenin have when they claim to be Socialists from a Marxist tradition. For what we should know about Lenin is that he did not practice what he preached. Thus, we should note the following about the West from the above article:
The traditional view of the West, inspired by Christianity, holds that a person’s primary identity is as a child of God. His defining attribute is his immortal soul which, through the illumination of the Holy Spirit and leading a moral life, can elevate anyone of any background to the heights of blessedness and contemplation. Rather than genetics, the Venerable Bede wrote, “Love alone, therefore, distinguishes between the children of God and the children of the devil.”
For when we look at the history of the West, what we see is race-based colonialism, slavery some of which was race-based, religious wars, economic and environmental exploitation, ethnic cleansing, imperial wars, and so forth. It should be evident that the West has oppressed its share of racial and religious groups. And all of that does not include how the West has traditionally treated the LGBT community. Is there any wonder why identity politics has emerged? From an objective view of how the West has treated people, it should be obvious that identity politics is necessary for some to survive. It is because, like Lenin, the West does not practice what it preaches.
Identity politics is defined in the following way:
a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
From that definition, it seems that identity politics suffers the same vulnerability as any other group does regarding morals and treating others with dignity. That vulnerability is tribalism. Tribalism is when group loyalty becomes so great that one loses their objectivity in being aware of the weaknesses of one's own group and the merits of other groups. And with tribalism, our group competes with other groups for some coveted prize be that of wealth and prosperity or control over new areas. Thus with tribalism, what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom rather than on any moral standard that is universally applied. With tribalism, we have moral relativity rather than having absolute values and universal principles. And with tribalism, we have group authoritarianism where we respond to those who do not give our group the respect we think it deserves in a hostile and aggressive way. It is tribalism that turns the belonging to identity groups into idolatry.
Certainly some of the identity groups that clashed in Charlottesville demonstrated tribalism in how they so freely attacked opposing groups. But identity groups do not have a monopoly on tribalism. Tribalism can exist in any kind of group from identity groups to ideological groups to political parties and so on. Tribalism can even exist in nations and civilizations where people think so highly of their own nation or civilization that they believe that their nation or civilization has everything to teach and nothing to learn from those outside their tribe--note that the wording there is an adaptation of a Martin Luther King Jr. statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 26
To R. Scott clark and his blogpost that complains about how the old definition of racism that relies on how one thinks about or acts toward those of a certain race is being replaced by a definition that revolves around privilege and class and thus whether one is racist can be determined by their position in society. This appeared in Heidelblog.
There are some good parts to this definition of racism, but there are some deficiencies as well. Confessing that racism is still a problem for all of us and that it can be subtle as well as open and brazen are strengths to this article by Clark.
But some of the deficiencies of this article includes the lack of a modern definition of racism that is causing concern. In addition, we have a pejorative use of the term 'Marxist' with the implication that because a definition is more Marxist, it must wrong. And finally, we have the assumption that the old definition of racism is adequate. And the test of whether the old definition of racism is adequate or not should not depend on white ideologues alone. Why? It is because 1) ideologues, and theologians are spiritual ideologues, insist on using their definitions, or ones accepted by them, only to define a problem; 2) Ideologues insist on the primacy of their definitions over facts on the ground; 3) being white might mean that such definitions were formulated by those who had a conflict of interests; and 4) should the victims of racism be listened to and heard when formulating an adequate definition of racism. We should note that because our society revels in being punitive, and that being racist carries with it a harsh stigma, that we expect it normal for whites to face a conflict of interests in determining whether they are racists, how racist they are, and whether their creations, like their systems such as our economic system, involves, depends on, or revolves around racism.
In other words, Clark's opposition to the new definition of racism is much like the objections to history revisionism. And the validity of those objections depends on the adequacy in which history was first reported. So too, does the original definition relied on by Clark adequately define racism we have and currently witness or experience it today? Clark assumes that the definition he relies on is adequate and does not need to be revised or added to especially by a definition that perhaps challenges a possible sacred cow of his: our current economic system.
We might ask Clark whether slavery in the South and the economic system that depended on it demonstrated racism. And if it did, is it possible that our current economic system does the same? And if that is true, then does the new definition of racism about which Clark complains but never gives a precise definition of other than to pejoratively characterize as being Marxist has merits?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 26
To Gordon Arnold and his blogpost about the influence Jonathan Edwards had on our nation’s founding fathers. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
I am not sure about the claims that Edwards, in his own way, helped contribute to the idea of the American Revolution and independence. That some continuity is found between how Edwards exhibited or encouraged 'defiant individualism' or 'spiritual egalitarianism' with our Revolution and independence might be accidental or misperceived.
In terms of the continuity of Edwards' thoughts that were also held by those who were involved with the American Revolution, it is possible that it was accidental or that Edwards views and/or practices were merely the result of going along with a certain crowd from his own time. And trying to connect Edwards ideas about any 'spiritual egalitarianism' with our revolution and resulting independence might be due more to a undeservedly charitable view of our nation than any kind of real connection. The combination of our Revolution and the writing of The Constitution was, in the view of some, really about which set of elites would be in charge of our nation: Would it be American elites or British elites?
The idea that one's own time and/or place has a unique role in history, such as Edwards' view of New England and the millennium, is not uncommon. The people of other nations have believed something similar about their own countries. After all, history teaches us that claiming to be special is normal.
But regardless of the past, Edwards view of liberty seems to be at the heart of some of the changes in our society today especially regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage and rights for transgendered people. Is our liberty found in doing what we please or in doing what God demands. Can both sets of liberty coexist in our nation or must it be an exclusive-or choice? It seems to me that Edwards's view of liberty contributes to many of today's Christians are taking the latter option in defining liberty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 28
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on what we need to know about hurricane Harvey hitting Houston. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition blog.
There are some other things we should know about the tragic Houston flood.
1 There is a need for a sufficient, rather than small, size government that can respond to huge natural disasters. Government resources that help people in tragedies don't emerge overnight, they must be built and maintained.
2 And speaking of government, we need to look at what regulations could have been in place that would have lessened the damage caused by such a strong storm. That was the case with Hurricane Katrina, that is the case now.
3 Not that there would be no longer any more strong hurricanes if we had already been addressing climate change issues, but we need to see if climate change contributed to the strength of the hurricane.
4 Finally, as we, the government, individual citizens, and private groups, liberally offer help to the residents of the Houston area whose lives have been turned upside down, we need to remind the elected officials of Texas of their responses to the calls for help after Hurricane Sandy hit the Eastern states of New York and New Jersey.
No comments:
Post a Comment