To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost of a mass murderer and how the government is to respond to crime. This appeared in heidelblog.
It is the line below that captures the conservative weakness when it comes to how it expects the state to respond to crime:
The state is not essentially an agency of therapy, of healing. Doctors heal. The state punishes
Why can't the state also try to rehabilitate those who are criminals and perhaps employ doctors to do so? Is it because of Romans 13? Did Romans 13 exhaustively describe the state's response to crime? Shouldn't the goal of the criminal justice system include that of reducing recidivism? Or in order to fulfill the Romans 13 description of the state, should the single focus of the state in terms of its response to crime be to punish, punish, punish.
There is a word that describes the reduction of justice to that of just punishment; that word is 'revenge.' When the state's only response to crime is to punish, then what we end up with is a vengeful society. And that becomes evident in the civil courts where people file legal lawsuits against those who offended them in order to get as much as they can out of the offending party.
Romans 13 describes the government's response to crime as imitating God's response to sin. And so yes, the government is called to punish those who do evil. And yet, what else have we read in both the Old and New Testaments regarding those who sin? Haven't we read that God does not treat us according to our sins? And isn't one of the reasons because of our own weaknesses and another reason is because if He did, none of us could stand? And aren't our lives suppose to reflect how God has treated us?
How tragically ironic it is for a New Testament teacher to limit the government's response to crime to that of punishment. Certainly the subject of the above blogpost needed to be removed from society in order to protect society. And some, not all, criminals must be removed from society in order to protect us. And it is right for the government to punish those who do wrong and to sometimes, perhaps often, remove criminals in order to protect society. But when the government's response to crime is reduced to punishment, we have a government that no longer reflects how God approaches us when we sin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 2
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that contains a part of an article as well as a link to that whole article where he sharply criticizes the Therapeutic Revolution as well as the term 'Gay Christian.' This apeared in Heidelblog.
Clark's blogpost is based on
https://www.agradio.org/revoice-nashville-and-the-therapeutic-revolution.html
The Therapeutic Revolution seems to be paired with post modernism through its rejection of objective truth. We should note that two self-proclaimed champions of objective truth are pre modernism and modernism. And yet, despite their proclaimed monopolopistic hold on objective truth, terrible atrocities have been committed under the banners of pre modernism and modernism. And failing to acknowledge that is the fatal flaw in any logical attack on post modernism and the Therapeutic Revolution.
In addition, what pre modern, religiously conservative Christians should note is that the more they rant an rail againts the Therapeutic Revolution, the more they sabotage their case. That is because the more they rant and rail against that revolution, the more they fit the personality types that the Therapeutic Revolution uses to understand people. For example, the post above shows Clark's tendency toward exhibiting an authoritarian personality type. For not only is he hostile to challenges to traditional ideas, his overly simplistic, black-white view of how the Scriptures portray government is another indicator of his personality type.
It's not that Clark should embrace the Therapeutic Revolution or post modernism, it is that the Therapeutic Revolution and post modernism have made valid observations and thus present valid concerns. Thus, any valid critiism of either one must account for those valid observations and concerns. But one would never know that from Clark's article.
Likewise, if one goes to the article on which the above post is based, he states that the 'pastoral is not therapeutic.' Such is stated in all-or-nothing terms as if the Pastoral can never have a part to it that is therapeutic.
The issue behind the above post, which becomes clear once one reads the whole article on which the above post is based, is the what to do about Christians who might lean toward homosexuality. Clark is clear, just as there are no 'thief Christians,' 'murderer Christians' and so forth, there are no 'gay Christians.' And yet, is it impossible for any Christian to commit theft or murder or some other serious crime? And once they commit that crime, don't they wear the label of that crime? Again, Clark's overly simplistic world view indicates the kind of personality type he has passionately embraced.
It isn't that Clark has no valid complaints or concerns. It is that neither he nor those behind the Therapeutic Revolution have a monopoly on the truth. And thus we need to read the specifics of both what the Therapeutic Revolution proposes as well as what Clark promotes to see if we can recognize glimpses of truth each side has. That is what we should do unless we want to totally reject the Therapeutic Revolution because Clark says we should.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Gene Veith and his blogpost on the role Post Modernism has played in questioning of rationality and reason by academics. The comment below has been pending for at least 14 days. The blogpost appeared on Patheos's Cranach
The below is a trend not just for Veith but for some other conservatives:
In the academic establishment today, much of the knowledge they convey to their students really is a construction of those in power–namely, the leftists who currently hold power in academia and who use their privilege to impose their ideology on students, colleagues, their professions, and their institutions.
Note how leftists are described negatively as a monolith. And that is a rather convenient thing to do when one wishes to demonize or scapegoat or silence their target by descrediting them. And doing so is no more accurate and no more morally right to do than to do that against people of a particular race or religion or nation.
And that practice of demonizing others is done by some in all ideologies: in conservative ideologies, liberal ideologies, and leftist ideologies. It is all part of tribalism and the authoritarianism that comes with it. And such demonizing has its ties to post modernism
As for post modernism, realize that the many reactions to the immoral treatment of others are often over reactions that employ all-or-nothing, also called black-white, thinking. This over reaction is similar to the reactions that create phobias. In addition, post modernism employs an outcome-based truth system that says if a belief or group of beliefs were used to justify oppression, exploitation, or marginalization, that belief or group of beliefs are false. And that goes for even those times when a belief or group of beliefs are misused or not correctly interpreted. There is no distinction made in post modernism. Thus part of post modernism includes a phobic-like reaction to legitimate sources of fear or disgust.
However, we need to give post modernism its due. It correctly identifies the immorality of imperialism, colonialism and other forms of exploiting and marginalizing others have been justified by religion, science, and/or reason. That is something pre modernism and modernism does not own up to. So just like pre modernism and modernism, though post modernism has its faults, it also has its contributions to make especially once we get past the black-white thinking and outcome-based truth system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 14
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that partially quotes one articles that complains about how, beginning with Modernism, we have become more subjective rather than figure out how we can conform what we objectively know about God. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Article cited: https://www.agradio.org/therapy-sin-and-shame.html
The way the Pre Modern era is described, one would think that expulsion from the Garden of Eden occurred just after the advent of Modernism. It is failure to grasp and confess the mass atrocities, sins, and errors conducted in the name God during the Pre Modern era that has led to a Pharisaical and self-sabotaging understanding of Modernism and Post Modernism by many religiously conservative Christians. For what has been associated with the Gospel during much of Church history? Hasn't it been a rejection of science, [while practicing*] racism, wars, economic classism, imperialism, colonialism, and the exploitation and marginalization of many outside of European Christianity? So how is it that none of that is mentioned as R. Scott Clark contemplates the changes that have occurred with the transition from the Pre Modern era to Modern and Post Modern eras?
[...*] was not part of the original comment but should have been.
No comments:
Post a Comment