WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Activism
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs
Favorite
Websites
My Stuff
On The Web
Audio-Visual
Library
Favorite
Articles
This Month's Scripture Verse:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
2 Timothy 3:1-5

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Wednesday, April 14, 2021

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 14, 2021

 April 7

To R. Schott Clark and his blogpost that criticizes churches for trying, as institutions, to end payday lending. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Sometimes our theological models provide a glue to the different parts of the Scriptures that help us see a fuller picture of what they are saying. But other times, our theological models limit or even mislead us as to what the Scriptures are saying. And that is especially true to those who exhibit a tribal loyalty to a given theological school of thought.

The above presents a standard 2KT viewpoint on whether it is the Church's job as an institution to end predatory payday lenders. And 2KT has contributions to make in that discussion. In particular, 2KT helps us see some of the differences that should exist between the Church and society. However, we should also note that with those differences comes the possibility that the Church's prophetic role in the world is obscured or infringed on. After all, shouldn't the Church preach the law along with the Gospel? And aren't many payday lenders breaking biblical laws that should apply to both the Church and society? Therefore, shouldn't the Church, as an institution, preach against payday lenders and how they exploit the vulnerable? And by the Church as an institution, I am referring to either the preaching or public stands taken by either individual churches or denominations.

But Clark frames the question of what the Church should do a little differently than the question asked. He asks if the Church should <b>END</b> payday lenders? Here, Clark's question assumes the ability of the Church to do so and that assumes that the Church should have a power in society that it really should not have.

But that isn't the question being asked in this comment. The question is whether the Church as an institution should preach against the exploitation practiced by payday lenders? If Clark says 'no,' then we should ask why should the Church, as an institution, speak out against the legalization of same-sex marriages in this nation? The Church as an institution certainly worked to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriages in this nation. Does Clark see same-sex marriages as not being similar enough in sinfulness to exploitive payday lending? And, isn't the Church, as an institution, actively working to end legal access to elective abortions.

We might also ask Clark why he takes the same approach to interpreting what Jesus said was the roles of the Church with how some view the roles of government according to Romans 13. For some Christians see Romans 13 as providing an exhaustive view of the roles of government even though that wasn't the purpose of that chapter. So is Clark correct in viewing Christ's words as an exhaustive view about what the Church should do? Should the Church be limited to preaching the Gospel and making disciples? After all, aren't there Scripture passages from both the Old and New Testaments which comment on how the Church should act in the world? Of course Clark's answers to these questions are questionable themselves. For Christ didn't say then that the Church should discipline its members but that was part of what Jesus had taught. So the question is, is preaching against payday lenders implied but what Jesus taught?

At this point, Clark not only fails to address the above questions, he retreats into his Reformed traditions and unquestionably uses their teachings to criticize what we now call other Christian denominations. And he does so with a certainty that the Reformed Traditions have everything to teach the other traditions and nothing to learn from them.

Clark's approach to interpreting and applying the Scriptures today regarding what should be the Church's duties in responding to payday lenders is quite literalistic. And such an approach assumes that there are no significant contextual differences between now and both the times of the Reformers as well as the times of the Apostolic Church. Such is a mistake.

We should note that both Jesus and the Apostles were concerned about the reputation of the Gospel. Jesus warned us not to become stumbling blocks to those who would hear the Gospel. And Paul tells his audiences not to harm the reputation of the Gospel by what they do or how they live. Thus we must ask this question: what if the Church's refusal to speak, as an institution, against payday lenders hurts the reputation of the Gospel? After all, we hear the Church, as an institution, speak against sexual and other personal sins committed by individuals. Doesn't the refusal to preach and take action against payday  lenders hurt the reputation of the Gospel of the Gospel and thus provides a stumbling block to some who would otherwise listen to the Church's preaching?

And we should add one more concern here. Is it possible that the reason Clark doesn't think that the Church, as an institution, has a responsibility to oppose payday lending in society perhaps because no one he goes to church with has become a victim of such businesses? On the other hand leaders of some Black churches from lower economic classes must constantly face of payday lending because too many of their members have become its victims? Contextual differences might be the real reason why Clark doesn't believe that the Church, as an institution, should be involved in battle against payday lending while some Black ministers from urban areas do.

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

April 13

To Barbara Elliot and her blogpost tat seeks to define conservatism as believing in the Truth, the good, and the Beautiful. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Yes, we would all like to idealize the ideologies we subscribe to so we can claim that is why we follow this ideology or that one. The problem arises when we claim that our ideology or ideologies have a monopoly on what we claim is the ideal.

And so it is with conservatism, which has significant contributions to make. It's belief in the truth, the good, and the beautiful runs afoul of its belief in the individual and its stance against the concentration of power in the government.

For many conservatives seem to think that power only resides in authority, and such is not the case. Power is the ability to influence and that can occur in both the public and private sector. Elite individuals from the private sector often get to where they are by exploiting others. And when gov't is not big enough to defend people against elite individuals or when gov't is unduly influenced by these individuals, then individualism rules along with the abuse of other individuals.

In addition, conservatism doesn't seem to care about the accumulation of wealth. It pretends that power and wealth are unrelated in a Capitalist economic system.  In our nation, wealth and political power go hand in hand. as seen by what our lawmakers concern themselves with (see  https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B    ).

In addition, conservatives claim that the fundamental building block of society is the family. But again, conservatives claim to have a monopoly on what should be the working definition of the family. For in limiting the family to a heterosexual married couple with children, those individuals who wish to form a family around a same-sex marriage have their dreams crushed  because of how conservatives insist that society should define what is a family.

In addition, by not allowing gov't to help people in need, those who are abandoned by their own families or whose families do not have the resources to care for them and any special needs become neglected because caring for someone is the family’s responsibility. And what can happen in a family can happen in a community.

And what about the conservative belief in God? Are conservatives saying that society should only recognize one religion by prohibiting the following of other religions or by giving that religion special privileges and thus a place of supremacy over others in a multi-religious society?

I could go on but the point should be made. The problem with conservatives is not that they believe in the truth, the good, and the beautiful. The problem is conservatism's insistence  that it has a monopoly in identifying those qualities.. And by claiming that, conservatism starts to become inconsistent with its actions and thus acts like any other ideology that it condemns. And that is a shame  because conservatism has things to contribute.


No comments: