Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 10, 2019

April 9

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on how Christianity opposes socialism. This appeared in Heideblog and it consists of a partial quote from an article posted in the Abounding Grace Radio website.

Also see he following:  https://www.agradio.org/does-the-bible-teach-socialism.html

Unfortunately, conservative recalling of attempts at socialism are very selective. The leftist leanings of democratically elected governments were overthrown by the US and sometimes others and replaced with brutal dictators. Now I suppose that what was quoted from the Belgic Confession in the article quoted from above could be used to support those new dictators, but why haven't those conservative Christians who would do so also employ the same quote to defend those left leaning governments that were democratically elected?

It is blatant opportunism to blame socialism for the dictatorships that occurred in Russia, China, and Cuba. First consider that the first and last of those nations which those claiming to be socialists were trying to overthrow were brutal dictatorships that were supported by the West, including the US. Thus it is blatant opportunism because those who make that claim not only ignore those conditions before the "socialist" revolutions, they ignore the criticisms made by Socialists of those who replaced right-wing corrupt dictatorships with "socialist" ones. As for China, the leadership that was overthrown was a corrupt leadership.

As for the conservative Christian approach to socialism, not only does there exist a embarrassing  amount of ignorance as to what Socialism, especially from the Marxist tradition, is, there is the effect of being taught to conflate conservative political-economic ideologies in which conservative American Christians grew up with their faith. There is also a basic ignorance of the fact that neither Socialism nor Capitalism are monoliths. Thus, Socialism can be easily condemned by conservative Christian commentators who assume otherwise.
This brings up the point of today's Capitalism's disparity with  Christianity. Capitalism has always been based on making the maximization of profits its driving force. But that cannibalizing ethic has not always been embraced as passionately as it is today. Today, we have neoliberal Capitalism which gradually replaced the post-World War II Bretton-Woods System. Neoliberal Capitalism has injected the maximization of profits ethic with massive amounts of steroids. Thus, all over the world where neoliberal Capitalism is embraced,  wealth disparity has continued to grow both within and between nations.

And despite the growth of the wealth disparity, the article from which the above blogpost comes advises us to follow the literal example of the Apostles despite the fact that historical and situational contexts between now and then have changed dramatically. That position never considers the possibility that the NT command to do what is good would come in conflict with the command to submit to the authorities. Martin Luther King Jr. successfully intermixed both concerns. But he was forced to do that because he saw how the commandment to do good can sometimes conflict with the commandment to obey the civil authorities. And the problem with not taking King's hybrid approach is that we can eventually end up being complicit with the evils performed by our current systems by following the literal examples of the Apostles during apostolic times.

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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on how to beat the secularists in terms of who should lead in influencing society. This blogpost consists referencing and article by Rebecca McLoughlin. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Also see https://www.agradio.org/engaging-the-culture-beating-the-secularists-at-their-own-game.html

What many of us religiously conservative Christians have such difficulty in understanding is how to share society with others as equals. That is because we have such a strong tendency to embrace authoritarianism without knowing what the disease is. Thus, while we are tempted to take a reactionary approach to the LGBT movement, we forget that that movement is a reaction to centuries of marginalization because of Christianity's influence on society.
We forget that our nation's religious underpinnings made homosexuality illegal for centuries. We are in no risk of seeing the favor returned. So we are clueless as to the effects of marginalization that the LGBT community has experience and so we become reckless in how we describe any inconsistencies and internal problems they experience and how we should react.
It is one thing, and Biblically necessary, to prohibit homosexuality in the Church. The Scriptures call us to do so. It is quite another thing to work so that the government does the same in society. Why? Because while the Church consists of those who believe in Christ to the extent of committing themselves to Him, no one in society is obligated to do the same. And thus we must limit our influence on the state regarding what should be allowed in society to recognize that society should not enforce the same rules on its members as the Church does on its own.

We need to share society with the LGBT community as equals. Why? Because they deserve that recognition. That sharing of society does not imply that we can't preach what the Scriptures say about what our sexual orientation and identity should be. It simply means that it is wrong for us to push what the Scriptures say about those subjects on those outside the Church.