Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 3, 2020

May 30

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on the ontology of Male-Female relations. In particular, this comment is concerned with his comments about Partriarchicalism and a side comment about how Dispensationalism refers to Reformed Theology’s eschatology and the Jewish people. This appeared in Heidelblog

First a side note. The pejorative use of the term 'Replacement Theology' shows a misunderstanding of both the Scriptures and Reformed Theology. The most descriptive term for Reformed theology as it applies to the two different peoples of God is 'Union Theology.' That is because under Christ, the true descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that is the Jewish children of the promise and the Gentile believers in Christ become united in one body. What unites them into one body is their faith in Christ.

However, I find Clark's view of Patriarchalism to be overly simplistic and thus a projection of how he describes it. And unfortunately, one usually begs more than one question when one over simplifies an idea or movement. The historical definition of the term has to do with the amount of power a king assumes for himself. It is absolute power. In essence, the king becomes a civil pope for the nation.

And when we look at the history of male leadership of the nations, we find a dreadful account of arrogance and the abuse of power. And it is that arrogance and abuse of power, whether exercised by civil authorities men in other roles such as the heads of businesses or families which are the concerna of feminists when talking about male patriarchy. In essence, what is being protested is male authoritarianism. But sometimes what is obscured is men, especially white males, have no monopoly on authoritarianism.

Robert Jensen is a good source to read about what Clark calls patriarchalism--though I believe he uses different terms.

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

June 2

To Pat Buchanan and his article that states that instead of vilifying the police, we should recognize that they are essential for bring justice and peace. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Buchanan makes the claim that because law and order are necessary for establishing peace and justice, and the police are necessary for establishing law and order, then the police are necessary for establishing justice and peace. And thus we should not vilify the police because of the riots.

But one problem with Buchanan's argument is that law and order does not always bring justice and peace. Why? As Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out, unjust laws  do not result in justice and can result in unrest instead of peace. In fact, it is the duty Americans to protest those unjust laws, though we should note that he insisted on peacefully protesting those laws.

Second, we should also consider the current case here. That how the police maintain law and order can result in the immediate loss of justice and the eventual loss of peace. Thus, we can assume that Buchanan is right in that without the police there can be no justice and peace. At the same time, depending on the laws and how the police enforce law and order.

Another problem with Buchanan's article is his scapegoating of liberals for the loss of law and order in Minnesota and elsewhere. But scapegoating is the result of over simplifying complex problems. It relies on reductionism and that reductionism moves us to practice all-or-nothing thinking. Here we should note that such thinking is a part of authoritarianism. And, just perhaps, authoritarianism can cause police officers who are its adherents to maintain law and order that are both unjust and eventually disruptive.

A mature look at the some of the riots we are witness is displayed by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (see  https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-05-30/dont-understand-the-protests-what-youre-seeing-is-people-pushed-to-the-edge ). Rather than opportunistically scapegoating  a political party, part of Abdul-Jabbar's article discusses all of the different ways in which Blacks are discriminated against and marginalized. And that includes a racism in the justice system. After all, George Floyd is not the only  Black person to be  unjustly killed by the police.

We have a choice then between  being overly simplistic, and perhaps opportunistic as well, in how we see the protests and riotBuchanan makes the claim that because law and order is necessary for establishing justice and peace, and the police are necessary for establishing law and order, then the police are necessary for establishing justice and peace. And thus we should not vilify the police because of the current unrest and claims made.

But one problem with Buchanan's argument is that law and order does not always bring justice and peace. Why? As Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out, unjust laws  do not result in justice and can eventually result in unrest instead of peace. In fact, he believed that it is the duty Americans to protest those unjust laws, though we should note that he insisted on peacefully protesting those laws.

Second, we should also consider the current case here. That how the police maintain law and order can result in the immediate loss of justice and the eventual loss of peace. Thus, we can assume that Buchanan is right in that without the police there can be no justice and peace. At the same time, justice and peace also depend on the laws and on how the police enforce law and order.

Another problem with Buchanan's article is his scapegoating of liberals for the loss of law and order in Minnesota and elsewhere. We should note that scapegoating is the result of over simplifying complex problems. It relies on reductionism and that reductionism moves us to practice all-or-nothing thinking. Here we should note that such thinking is a part of authoritarianism. And, just perhaps, authoritarianism can cause police officers who are its adherents to maintain law and order that are both unjust and eventually disruptive. After all, authoritarianism is fear-driven.

A mature look at the some of the riots we are witness is displayed by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (see  https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-05-30/dont-understand-the-protests-what-youre-seeing-is-people-pushed-to-the-edge ). Rather than opportunistically scapegoating  a political party, part of Abdul-Jabbar's article discusses all of the different ways in which Blacks are discriminated against and marginalized. And it is the discrimination and marginalization that has led to the protests and, in some cases,  riots. And that includes a racism in the justice system. After all, George Floyd is not the only  Black person to be  unjustly killed by the police.

We have a choice then between  being overly simplistic, and perhaps opportunistic as well, in how we see the protests and riots,, or taking a mature, well thought out view of the unrest in our nation.