Sept 29
To C. Daniel Motley and his blogpost that expresses concern about a new sexual revolution that demands polyamory. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website
I don't see any significant signs of a new sexual revolution emphasizing polyamory. If it does occur, it isn't because of the Obergefell decision. When one compares monogamous same-sex marriage to monogamous heterosexual marriage and polyamory, it is easy to see that monogamous same-sex marriage has far more in common with monogamous heterosexual marriage than with polyamory.
Perhaps we should look at the attitudes millennials have to sex and marriage to gain some insight into any future call for polyamory. From what I have seen, millennials have a more open view toward multiple sexual partners. But the why is the most important part here. The open view to multiple partners is done out of a search to be/feel more connected. And perhaps it is understanding that search that provides the best hedge against polyamory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 5
To Bob Lepine and his blogpost that tries to make sense of the mass shooting in Las Vegas. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.
One thing we might want to remember here. That when we see violent behavior in society, that that the people who produce such behavior are as much a product of society than anyone else. To believe otherwise in a society where people are increasingly objectified as machines that either help us get what we want or become disposable. is to entertain delusions of righteous grandeur.
What I am saying goes beyond guns, which need to be revamped so as to reduce the probability of similar attacks in the future. Because of the values promoted the most in society, perhaps we should expect more of such calloused actions as what we saw in Las Vegas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 8
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost of an interview in which he sees people’s interest in the social gospel and concern over social justice as leading people astray from the Gospel. This applied in Heidelblog
There are 3 major problems with the approach taken by R. Scott Clark to the social gospel and social justice. They consist of an imitation problem, a strawman problem, and the exception of racism.
Clark's imitation problem has everything to do with how he applies the New Testament to the the social gospel and social justice. For Clark seems to teach that the only things we can learn about the social gospel and social justice from the New Testament is that which can be imitated from the Apostles. If they didn't address social justice or challenge the government when it did wrong, then neither can we. And the basis for Clark's teaching here assumes that there are no significant contextual differences between the Church today and the Church during the time of the Apostles. That Christians are not facing any change of status regarding the Gospel in the world and that the social and political structures are not significantly different during the time of the Apostles.
Such seems to overlook that during the time of the Apostles, the Gospel was unknown to the rest of the world and so the major concern of the Apostles was to spread the Gospel. And part of spreading the Gospel was to ensure that its reputation, through the actions of believers, remained as spotless as possible. The same cannot be said today. The Gospel is known throughout the world. But not only that, because of the actions of government leaders who have and still claim to rule in the name of Christ, both good and bad associations have been made with the Gospel. And those bad associations must be addressed by the Church if it is to preach the Gospel with as much legitimate credibility as possible.
Thus, we should note that for Clark all that can be gleaned from the times of the Apostles is that even when rulers are wicked, we are to submit to the governming authorities and we are to focus on our personal sanctification. And according to the examples set by the Apostles, there is no room for activism or challenging those in authority. Rather, we are to change society but focusing solely on the changing the lives of individuals with the preaching of the Gospel.
To Clark's approach, the problem of Christian involvement in politics presents a significant challenge. For there were no Christians who served in the local or regional governments of the Roman Empire during the times of the Apostles and neither was there such a thing called Democracy where citizens are called to participate in various levels of self-governance. In addition, we might ask Clark how the Apostles would have directed us on how to vote on issues like same-sex marriage in society or a specific war.
The 2nd problem with Clark's approach concerns his strawman approach to the social gospel. It's a strawman approach because he portrays the social gospel and social justice as monoliths that could be defined by the works of an individual such as Walter Rauschenbusch, in the case of the social gospel, and Karl Marx, in the case of social justice. Thus for Clark, the social gospel always involves the elimination of the actual Gospel and social justice is defined solely by the pagan influence of Karl Marx who promoted the idea of a utopia. Thus, according the Clark, the definitions of the social gospel and social justice are unchangeable.
Because the social gospel can only mean what Rauschenbush defined it to be and the same applies to social justice and Karl Marx, the development of thought in both subjects and the various approaches taken by others who followed them are ignored. In addition what seems to follow Clark's thinking here is that no new version of the social gospel or social justice can be developed by Christians who while borrowing from Rauschenbush and Marx, do not compromise on the Gospel.
Of course, in order for Clark to maintain his positions on the social gospel and social justice, he has to account for the work of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement. This is his third problem because he doesn't really present a full picture of what King practiced and promoted. For there were no early Christian examples that were imitated by King when he worked against racism. Clark doesn't mention that King employed activism, civil disobedience, and calls for structural changes in society knowing that such changes could change some hearts while providing legal protection for Blacks from those who hearts would not change. Thus, much of King's approach provides a counterexample to what Clark is calling for.
But Clark sweeps King's methods under the carpet of the sin of racism, which King was working against. Thus, what King did was acceptable because, according to Clark, he was calling us Christians to repent from racism, a way of viewing and treating people that is totally against the Scriptures. But what follows Clark's treatment of King is that racism is the only societal and individual sin that vindicates King. However, the way Clark tells the story, King seemed to be only calling the Church to repent.
While Clark is rightly concerned with maintaining a faithfulness to preach the Gospel while interacting with society, what he misses is this. Everything that the Church does and does not do becomes associated with the Gospel. Thus, regardless of whether the Church speaks out on social justice issues or follows some form of the social gospel, it becomes associated with the Gospel. That means that the Church's silence on social justice issues impacts the reputation of the Gospel. And that reputation, as seen by many non-Christians, is that while the Church excels at beating people up over indivudal sins, especially sexual sins, societal and state sins, including those sins that benefit the wealthy, are passed over. This seems to violate what James 2 talks about when he condemned favoritism. In addition, while the Church neglects to preach against societal and state sins, it passively aligns itself with wealth and power. And we should note that the Church had aligned itself with wealth and power in the pre-revolutionary times of the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions with disastrous for both the Church and the reputation of the Gospel.
We should note that while Clark rightly sees racism as something that must be spoken against by the Church, it isn't just because of how members of the Church should repent of the sin. In addition, many of the unjust actions pointed to by those promoting the social gospel and those working for social justice revolve around the commandments prohibiting murder and theft. For example, exploiting workers by underpaying them is a form of theft. In fact, one could say that such is a kind of the sin James condemns in James 5:1ff. And when the economic conditions caused by paying employees poverty wages causes early deaths in those employees or their dependents, then those promoting such conditions could also be charged with murder according to the Scriptures.
We should note that King also worked and crusaded against economic exploitation and poverty. In addition, he spoke against the Vietnam War as well. If King was correct in opposing racism, was he wrong in opposing that war? After all, he saw racism, war/militarism, and materialism/economic exploitation as being inextricably linked.
What Clark seems to miss in his approach to the social gospel and social justice is an awareness of an insularity he is promoting for the Church. For Clark, King was right to oppose racism because it was practiced in the Church. But the Church is not only to preach against the sins committed by Church members, it is to speak prophetically to society if it is to follow the examples of the OT prophets, and it is to do good. And while doing all of that, it needs to recognize the the differences in its responsibility to society and the Church. And that fulfilling its responsibility to society, the Church is making positive associations with the Gospel that enhances its opportunities to preach the Gospel. And all of that can be done without compromising the Gospel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 9
To Walter McDougall and his blogpost on what was real conservatism during a time when America’s founding has become wholly corrupted both domestically and in foreign affairs. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
With America being poisoned by the source of energy of its economic system, which is greed, it is quite normal to ponder over the good old days along with the corollary of searching for its vanguards. But such pondering and searching amounts to nothing more than another waiting for Godot.
When was the good old days for America? That depends on with whom one is speaking. Certainly there are times when at least some Whites saw sunny weather and clear skies. But It is difficult to say whether such good old days were ever just overcast for Blacks while the plight of Native Americans has never even seen overcast conditions.
And if, in our nation's history, Native Americans and Blacks had never seen real good weather, where are the real conservatives of which the article above speaks?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost that rightly criticizes the Russian Revolution. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
If we read Rosa Luxemburg's criticisms of the government Lenin formed, maybe we would not be so quick to attribute the aftermath of the Russian Revolution to Socialism, or at least all Socialists. The October Revolution was hijacked from the beginning and so it is difficult to say whether it started good and ended bad or whether it was bad from the beginning. Certainly, the conditions that spurred the need for revolution were significantly objectionable to the people. And we should note that those conditions were caused by an economic system that was a hybrid of a peasant economy with capitalism. And the capitalists' support of the war only made living conditions worse.
Who knows how socialism would have turned out to be if the Mensheviks didn't walkout of the 2nd All Russian Congress of the Soviet? But because they did, Bolshevism became a form of Communism, which is Socialism to some, that produced nothing more than just another form of a Tsarist dictatorship. That is what Luxemburg rightly called a bourgeois dictatorship.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10
To Dylan Pahman and his blogpost on why Christopher Columbus gets too much blame for atrocities that occurred in the parts of the New World he “discovered.” This appeared in the Acton Blog.
Sorry, but it matters little whether one groups the settlers referred to with Columbus or not, their deeds as a whole are utterly reprehensible and enabled by Columbus's journey and his own leadership and conduct. If we include all that was written above with the history of how America was colonized, it indicts Western Civilization far too many to count atrocities conducted against non-whites. Thus, it is a great mystery as to why we should care about preserving Western culture Western Civilization's legacy.
And yes, since the mention of Columbus did not include all of his ventures in the New World, he did serve as a reprehensible person.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how the DOJ’s latest memo affirms our religious rights and liberty. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Besides the fact that some of these principles were already in play, we should note the reason for the DOJ's memo: it is to enable and protect religiously conservative Christians when, in their business ventures, they discriminate against the LGBT community. That keeps that part of the base in line despite Trump's failures both in judgment and morals.
Allowing religiously conservative Christians to discriminate against the LGBT community in society doesn't show a commitment to rights, it exhibits a devotion to reestablishing privilege for these same Christians. For liberty deal with equality, privilege is used to marginalize others. Liberty - equality equals privilege, not rights. And nothing says that some religiously conservative Christians are seeking privilege more than their past opposition to same-sex marriage in society. It biblically right for them to prohibit same-sex marriage in churches that believe that the Bible is God's Word. I stand with them on that. But society is made up of a diverse group of people of which some are religiously conservative Christians. And when religiously conservative Christians opposed same-sex marriage, they were trampling over the religious rights of those whose religious beliefs accommodate or support same-sex marriage. And, in fact, some of the objections to the legalization of same-sex marriage included the fear that it would infringe on the religious rights of these same religiously conservative Christians. Those rights revolved around the freedom to marginalize, to various degrees, the LGBT community in society. And, as was said before, the DOJ memo helps keep these same religiously conservative Christians in the fold of those who support the President.
So the DOJ memo is not primarily concerned with rights as it is with poll numbers and the future votes of those who want to marginalize the LGBT community in society.
No comments:
Post a Comment