Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 2, 2020

Aug 5

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost entitled Tribalism and Irony. IN the article, Clark takes issue with a critic of his article about Grace Community Church’s worship service while allegedly, by Clark, having not read the article. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The siren song of tribalism is particularly alluring to those who build high pedestals for their heroes and pet ideologies--realize that theology is a kind of ideology.

So noting your strong allegiance to conservative political ideology as well as reformed theology, I would be careful in citing others for tribalism. It all has to do with the height of the pedestals on which we place our heroes and favorite ideologies.

BTW, research has shown that there is no spike in coronavirus cases because of the protests since most of the protesters continue to wear masks. That makes the public gatherings of the protests a little too incomparable with the public gatherings of worship where masks are generally not worn.

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

Aug 24

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost warning about a new McCarthyism because of a new Princeton proposal to have a committee be in charge of investigating anti-Black racism by faculty as practiced in their behaviors, incidents, and research. This was posted in Heidelblog.
What is apparent both from past concerns and actions and present ones, is that some conservatives become on edge when prejudice and discrimination come under higher scrutiny. And that seems to say something about those particular conservatives and their ideology.  Here we should note that conservatism is not a monolith so this in now way is describing all conservatives.

What is also odd is this warning about the possibility of a McCarthyism employed by nonconservatives while the political party that most conservatives align themselves with has become much more authoritarian than during the last Presidential election. Trump is now the GOP. That is an ominous warning according to History.

In the past, the Tsars saw themselves as Russia and the Bolsheviks equated themselves with the Revolution. And we know about Hitler and which group he defined as the superior race. When a person or group is equated with a cause or nation, nonconformity is seen as opposition to a greater good and thus the enemy. And yet, Clark is concerned about a new McCarthyism from nonconservatives. The question for Clark is whether he believes that only conservatives can wield the sword of enforced conformity and authoritarianism correctly.

After all, calling for greater scrutiny of what could be considered racism in and of itself is not threatening. What makes it threatening is the authoritarian response to noncompliance emphasizes harsh punishment. So what makes Clark understandably on edge is not just the proposal, but the social context in which the proposal would operate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aug 28

To R. Scott Clark and Carl Trueman for Clark’s blogpost that quotes and cites an article written by Trueman who asks whether we should add to what the Reformers wrote about the marks of the Church in the light of the sins that today’s wokeness is directing our attention today. This was posted in Heidelblog.

Trueman’s article can be found at:
    https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/08/woke-repentance

Granted that wokeness is selective in the sins it points out, but what group, including the Church, hasn't been? So who are Christians to point out that particular fault about wokeness without identifying wokeness as a peer in selectivity?

And why call wokeness hokey? Why call the awareness of social and corporate sins and the desire to doing something about them hokey? Is that because personal, individual sins are more evil? Are status quo sins less sinful than aberrant sexual sins? If wokeness is pointing out real sins, then shouldn't our response be that acknowledging where wokeness is correct and should be listened to rather than labeling it as if it had nothing worthwhile to say?

Trueman is correct in nothing how the Church has failed and that it needs to repent. But what wokeness is pointing to is that just perhaps we have more sins to repent of than we be knowledgeable of or able to repent of. And when realizing that, we gain a better, but not complete, understanding of God's mercy and grace and thus the graciousness with which we need to treat each other. And we might also learn that the Church, especially the traditions it so heavily relies on, is not the only source for learning about our sins.

And speaking of Church traditions, is it possible that conservative theologians, like both Clark and Trueman, are overly dependent on Reformed traditions to the extent that they use them as a canon to determine how we should both understand and respond to current problems?