Dec 23
To R Scott Clark and his blogpost that criticizes the CT editorial that asserts that Trump must be removed from office. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
The CT editorial spoke for many religiously conservative Christians. And it did so not because the writer believed that America is the Kingdom of God or that the President is our national pastor. And it did so not because the writer denied that we have a 2-fold citizenship or denied that we should have different expectations of members of the Church from members of society.
It was done because both there is still a role of demanding justice from our government and because the reputation of the Gospel is a stake here.
Just because there are two different standards for members of the Church and members of society, doesn't mean that there are no standards of justice for society and the state. That was an important point made by Martin Luther King Jr. when he referred to Augustine when he said that unjust law is not a law. We should note that our nation was founded on white supremacy among other things. White supremacy order our society, determined land acquisition through ethnic cleansing, enabled the race-based enslavement of people, enabled Jim Crow, was part of The Constitution, and still exists in the growing wealth disparity between the races. Christians who supported white supremacy hurt the reputation of the Gospel. Why? That is because when we call ourselves Christians, everything we do or refrain from doing, say or refrain from saying is associated with the Gospel. That is just as true for when we act and speak as individuals as when we witness society and the state acting and speaking for us. The various levels of guilt of so many Germany citizens during the Nazi regime bears witness to that. And since we so often fail to adequately represent Christ in all areas of life without living in a dictatorship, the knowledge that everything we do and say as well as what we refrain from doing and saying is associated with the Gospel should strike fear in every Christian's heart. It does in mine.
We should also note some Church history here. For preceding the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions, the respective predominant branch of the Church in those 3 cases supported those with wealth and power prior to those revolutions. Lenin spoke observationally when he repeated Marx's claim that religion 'is opium for the people.' As a result, when those revolutions took place, the Church was credibly portrayed as the enemies of the people. Here we should note that Post Modernism is an expanded macrocosm of those events--Post Modernism also rejects the metanarrative of Modernism, not just Pre Modernism.
We should note that though both of our major political parties are bought and paid for by financial elites and corporations. And the Republican Party, more than the Democratic Party, caters to the interests and even cravings of those elites and corporations and do so to great harm to our nation and, thus, eventually to the reputation of the Gospel. So when the vast majority religiously conservative Christians back Trump and the Republican party, we are merely witnessing Church history tragically repeating itself.
Clark's ironic weakness here is the pedestal on which he places our nation and is founders. Ironic because he writes from a 2KT viewpoint regarding the different levels of righteousness that exists in society and the Church. That pedestal, however, has a caveat. That condition is that one sees the nation as political conservatives, some of whom have refused to apologize for America's actions, see it. And it is that wedding of political and religious conservatism that, again ironically, allows Clark contribute to tragic repeating of Church history.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 31
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quoting of Nick Batex who questions whether the new concerns for the marginalized as expressed in social justice, intersectionality, and human flourishing are distractions to the Gospel in the Church. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Quote comes from
https://www.beautifulchristianlife.com/blog/are-you-bored-with-the-gospel
I am surprised that time is allowed to judge whether the new concerns of social justice, intersectionality, and human flourishing are legitimate. I thought that the Scriptures were suppose to do that.
In addition, allowing time to judge doesn't seem to allow for the distinction between a biblical concern for and approaches to social justice, intersectionality, and human flourishing from unbiblical concerns or unbiblical approach to those subjects.
Finally, the concern for social justice and intersectionality exist in part because those who were reputed representatives of the Gospel had, and some still do, participate in the marginalization of others. We should also note that the concern for human flourishing is sometimes a gateway drug to opportunistic vanguardism, as in Lenin's case, or paternalistic autocracy, as with what some religiously conservative Christians want employed by their favorite leaders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 1
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that shows the video of a Praeger-U video that claims that the Enlightenment did not give us the contributions like democracy or interest in medical science that it is credited with. This appeared in Heidelblog.
The claim that all good things came from The Englightment is certainly false. But to say that implies that all good things came from good religious and political conservatives who preceeded The Enlightenment is also false. The fault with both ideas is the all-or-nothing thinking that dominates in the word 'all.' That type of thinking is a foundational part of authoritarianism. In this case, it is conservative authoritarianism that seeks the sole credit for all the good things we enjoy today. And proving that contention can't be done in a short video.
Conservative authoritarianism seeks such credit to establish its credentials for dominating society and culture rather than collaborating with non-conservatives.
Sorry, but the very idea of the government by consent flies in the face of the traditional-based conservatism even if some conservatives had previously thought of it. That some conservatives had previously thought of it doesn't imply that enlightenment thinkers did not come to that viewpoint independently or that they did not contribute to promoting that concept.
History tells us what religious and political conservatives did during centuries before The Enlightenment. The religious wars, imperial wars, colonialism, the marginalization of groups of people, the bigotry, and the belief in racial supremacy are part of the heritage of the religious and political conservatives. So too is their biblically-based rejection of scientific findings like the shape of the Earth and its place in the solar system and universe. Even the best of Christian leaders failed miserably in leading society fairly. Then again, Enlightenment leaders have failed too because they too contributed to some of the same things conservatives contributed to. And that is why we don't employ the word and concept of all when referring to the contributions of political and religious conservatives or those of the followers of The Enlightenment to today's life. And that finding was provided by Post Modernism, which itself has also produced its own problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment