April 30
To R. Scott Clark and his article that tries to answer accusations made against a theological camp of which he is a member: 2 Kingdom Theology. This appeared in Heidelblog.
I understand and respect Clark's reactions to the R2K monicker and the allegations made against 2KT listed in the above article. It sounds like the motivation for the allegations is that of establishing guilt by association. And that can be troublesome especially when the allegations are not true.
But I wish that a couple of the above allegations were true because they could address some of the deficiencies in 2KT. There is also the weakness exhibited in the above defense provided by Clark of defending positions by relying more on theology than the Scriptures. Below are some of the allegations that I wish were true.
Allegation #1: not only do I wish that 2KT would support civil unions for same-sex couples, I want it to defend same-sex marriage in society, not in the Church. Why is that? It is because to do otherwise would be to work against full equality for those in the LGBT community in society. In addition, it is some given theologies, not the New Testament, that prohibits society from allowing same-sex marriage.
We should note that as strong as Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1 is, it does not move homosexuality outside of what can be normally expected of unbelievers. In addition, in I Cor 5, Paul deals with a heterosexual sin that is described as being beyond what should be expected from unbelievers. In describing that sin in that way, Paul has implied that that heterosexual sin is worse than homosexuality. And in neither Romans 1 or I Cor 5 does Paul suggest that any social sanctions should be put on the practitioners of those sins. By removing the practitioner of the gross heterosexual sin from the Church, he has handed that person over to society while stating that he cares not for the purity of society. Such does not make a strong New Testament argument for legally prohibiting same-sex marriage.
Allegation #3: There is a compulsion by many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians to find ways to exert a Christian control over society. One such way is to claim that natural law must be, in all cases, the basis for laws governing society. And so when Clark adds that parts of the Scriptures serve as a basis for that natural law, one is vying for some degree of supremacy for the Christian faith over society. And if one was to be consistent there, one would have to denounce democracy when insisting on some degree of supremacy for the Christian faith over society. And because the insistence that all of a natural law that is based on the Scriptures must be legally binding for those in society, 2KT has lost any significant difference it claims to have over Transformationalism.
To give an example for why the insistence by some of my fellow religiously conservative Christians is problematic, one only has to consider the homosexual issue. In nature, homosexuality is practiced in around 1,500 species with benefits to the members of at least some of these species. Thus, to use natural law to argue against homosexuality while natural law, as it can be observed provide contradictory examples in the animal kingdom gives a mixed message.
Insisting on the Christian interpretation of natural law is imposing Christianity on others in a nation that is multi-religious and is based on religious freedom. Jesus warns us against doing so. It is one thing to have our faith as a reason to protect the rights and lives of those being oppressed, but that is not the case here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 3
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that takes part of an article on what being woke has caused some people to do. This appeared in Heidelblog.
With all of the falsehoods spread on the internet, there is no way that the claims made in the above article can be verified. Information about the website source is sketchy. The domain site is 3 years old. The name of the organization that owns the domain and basic information about that organization is redacted (see https://www.scamadviser.com/check-website/threadreaderapp.com ). The name of the author of the article cited is incomplete and there is no mention of the name of the organization the author wrote about. So if we are concerned with the commandment prohibiting bearing false witness, what should we do with such a story that allows for no verification? And is it responsible to make the generalizations about those who are woke which Clark makes based on the story?
In addition, to a certain extent, those of us who have been privileged in society will have trouble understanding what the marginalized have to say. Why is that? Perhaps it is what Manfred Max-Neef said about what it takes to understand those who live different lives than we have. He gave being in love with a person as his example. He said that no matter what we have learned from studying the subject of being in love, we can never understand it until we have had that experience. He applied that lesson to poverty as he left academia to live with the poor in order to understand poverty. He found that he really didn't understand poverty until he lived among the poor.
So for those of us who have lived privileged lives, how much can we understand what it means to be marginalized because of one's race, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any factor that has caused one to be marginalized for the most of America's history? The answer to that question doesn't mean that we can't help or try to sympathize. Perhaps we can give some guidance. But can those of use who struggle to observe the problems that the marginalized have lived through and still experience on a day to day basis understand those problems when our privilege has kept us in various bubbles?
On the other hand, we need to recognize the traps that face some who are marginalized and who are seeking to undo long-term social injustices. The first trap is in how one approaches the solution to social injustices. That trap is to react in a phobic manner where we employ all-or-nothing thinking that throws out everything associated with a given social injustice along with those factors that actually contributed to maintaining those injustices. This phobic reaction consists of a real fear of not being able to distinguish between those factors that are merely associated with social injustices from the factors that have contributed to social injustices. The phobia reaction is like that what a child might experience who developed a phobia of dogs after getting bitten by a dog. The child is afraid that he/she cannot distinguish a friendly dog from a unfriendly dog and thus is scared of and flees all dogs. Should we speak harshly to those who react that way to social injustices they have experienced or should we seek, as much as we can to listen to and learn from them?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 7
To Gene Vieth and Carl Trueman as Veith reviews Trueman's article that compares Marx's view of religion with how society should view Identity Politics. This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos.
Trueman's article
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/04/identity-politics-opium-of-the-people
First, I sm not sure if Veith fairly represents what Trueman is saying about Marx's view of religion. For Veith says Trueman as saying that Marx saw religion as a 'helpful phenomenon.' But note what Trueman said about Marx's view of religion:
Marx has no sympathy for religion, he has deep sympathy for the poor people who put their trust in it.
After quoting Trueman's citing of Marx's famous statement, Veith follows by saying that Marx did not say that religion is oppressive. But if religion enables oppression, how is it not oppressive? Note what Lenin said below as he repeats what Marx' https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm ):
Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.
Note that Lenin said what he did from observation, not logical deduction. He said that about religion from how he saw it being used.
As for whether Trueman's interpretation of Marx was accurate when interpreting Marx by saying that Marx had a 'subtle approach to religion' and 'In his view, religion may be false,' we should note what Marx said in the paragraphs that follow is famous line (see https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm ):
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
Besides those points, what Trueman is saying is that what Marx saw religion as being to the people of his day is what identity politics is to us. And he says that for the purpose of completely marginalizing the identity politics movements. And I say that even though Trueman warns against totally dismissing the identity politics' as being self-serving pleading. He is not telling us to learn some of the solutions to the sad state of affairs which he acknowledges to exist from those who are suffering the most. At best, we are to only listen to their complaints to learn about their suffering.
Thus, Trueman's model of the problem here can be illustrated by the relationship that exists between an authoritarian management and labor. On its best days, that management will listen to the complaints expressed by the workers. But then, that management will circle the wagons to develop their own solutions to those problems, at least some of which are caused by management, without asking the workers for their suggestions. Remember that, throughout our nation's history, the Church has had a dominant role in determining what is and what is not acceptable in society. And now that those who have been marginalized, much by what the Church has directed society to accept or reject, have been speaking out, Trueman is saying that Christianity has heard their complaints and will, by itself, solve those problems, at least some of which the Church has created and/or maintained.
Thus it appears that according to Trueman, only Christians can offer suggestions as to what remedies can help the hurting.
No comments:
Post a Comment