Oct 19
To Bernard N. Howard and his blogpost on how horrible Luther’s anti-Semitism is. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition
In talking about trying to understand Luther's anti-Semitism, it was written in the above article that sin is irrational. But that is not always the case. Sinful reactions toward those who wrong us in various ways can be considered quite rational. And what can be considered irrational in such reactions is the attempts to readily forgive and love those who wrong us.
We should seek to fully understand Luther's hatred of the Jews just as we should seek to fully understand attacks of our enemies against us. At the same time, we should recognize that full understanding on our part is impossible. So we should understand as much as much as possible. To recognize that sin can be both rational and irrational at the same time depends on the context of the judgment. What understanding actions and attitudes of others which are clearly wrong does is to provide evidence as to whether someone else contributed to those actions and attitudes. For Luther, mere disagreement was enough reason for him to lash out at others. And that part of Luther is, unfortunately, well imitated by many religiously conservative Christians today. So it isn't just Luther's anti-Semitism that should not be imitated today.
Finally, the distinction that Howard makes between honoring Luther for the specific contributions he made from celebrating Luther is very good. Such a nuanced approach reduces the all-or-nothing thinking approach employed by many authoritarians who would want us to accept the views of certain authority figures with thinking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 22
To Joe Carter and his blogpost that compares those churches that are KJV-Onlyism and those that are LGBT Affirming. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
This comparison between followers of KJV-Onlyism and LGBT-Affirming seems like an authoritarian attempt to find both sides guilty by association. We should note that authoritarian approaches to issues by ex-Marines who are religiously conservative Christians should not surprise us. Though some of the comparisons are valid, some would include all of us. One comparison that isn't valid is claiming that either side is rooted in Gnosticism. Such a comparison shows an ignorance of what was the essential part of Gnosticism. In addition, neither group is any less guilty of relying on secret knowledge than any confessional church is.
But what is more important is that the LGBT-Affirming label is really an ambiguous name. After all, there are multiple spheres and contexts in which the LGBT approach to sexuality and identity can be affirmed and affirming in one sphere and context doesn't mean that one must affirm them in all spheres. Just to give an example, Some believe that the LGBT approach to sexuality and identity are morally acceptable in both the Church and society. Others believe that such an approach is not acceptable in the Church but should be supported in society in terms of its laws while also believing the Church should preach repentance to those in society. Are those who belong to the latter group going to Hell? Inquiring believers want to know.
Finally, we might want to comment on a group not mentioned in the article above. While Carter says that neither the LGBT-Affirming nor the King James Onlyism are malevolent, can we say the same of those religiously conservative Christians who are working to marginalize the LGBT community in society? I don't think so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 24
To Richard Maher and his blogpost that sharply criticizes criticisms of Trump from the “left” as being a result of personal spiritual problems. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
While Maher objects to the 'unprincipled,' 'existential angst' of what he perceives as the monolithic left, he simply engages in the same mindset as the people he complains about. For a major factor in what drives unprincipled reactions to people or movements is tribalism. And part of tribalism is to view one's own group as having everything to teach and nothing to learn from the other group(s). And that is what is implied through Maher's criticisms of Trump's critics on the Left.
Nevermind that Trump's Administration is actively working to dismantle regulations that protect the environment but reduce ROI for investors despite the overwhelming scientific opinion of those who are convinced by the evidence (CE) that climate change is occurring and is predominantly a result of human activity. Also ignore the Trump behind the curtain who continues to antagonize the already troubled leader of North Korea who has his finger on his own version of the button. We are also being told that we can ignore Trump as his Administration removes regulations that would protect workers from abuse and exploitation, threatens to continue to shift the tax burden and increase the deficit with his tax proposals, or threatens to make the health care insurance provided by Obamacare more difficult to obtain by those in need by cutting some of its funds. In addition, we are not told to see Trump's childish tweets as unprincipled and fanatical as Maher describes Trump's opponents on the Left. And none of that addresses the racism of Trump's immigration policies including his wall.
Yes, some of the actions and attitudes of Trump's opponents on the "left" merit much criticism. But even here, Maher's monolithic description of the left fails to distinguish liberalism from the left and fails to note the rationality of specific objections made by some liberals and leftists. In other words, according to Maher, non-conservative criticisms made of Trump are horribly wrong while his criticisms of both Trump and non-conservatives are completely correct. And I am assuming that Maher accepts conservative criticisms of Trump.
This bipolar view of conservatives and non-conservatives expressed by Maher shows the same kind of tribalism that unprincipled criticisms of Trump from non-conservatives exhibits. In the end it embraces moral relativity as right and wrong is determined by who does what to whom. And his above article shows that he is more focused on discrediting what he sees as the left than in addressing the problems they are concerned with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost that states that the Pope should not just condemn actions that cause poverty, he should also support the creation of wealth. This appeared in the Acton blog.
What Carter misses, and perhaps deliberately so, is that the creation of wealth isn't the only concern we should have when helping the poor. We should also look at the trade-offs involved in each way we try to create wealth. As new wealth is created, is it being distributed or consolidated? Is the creation of new wealth due to the exploitation of workers or the environment? Is the creation of new wealth a payback from politicians for campaign contributions or gifts?
We should note that today's economic system is neoliberal capitalism. We should remember how it was introduced into some countries. For example, neoliberal capitalism was installed in Chilé and Argentina by military dictators who came to power through coups that overthrew democratically elected governments. We should note that neoliberal capitalism has increased wealth disparity in many nations and well as between nations. We should note that the free market of neoliberal capitalism opposes a people's democratic control of the market. And we should note that Pope Francis is not only aware of the multiple issues mentioned in the first paragraph of this comment, he is aware of at least some of what was just mentioned about neoliberal capitalism.
Perhaps, it is Carter, rather than the Pope, who needs to say more things about wealth and its creation. For it seems that, according to his past articles with his praise of neoliberal capitalism's Free Market, Carter is unaware of many of the issues involved with the kind of creation of wealth that helps the poor.
No comments:
Post a Comment