July 15
To Jerry Salyer and his blogpost article that attempts to distance Orwell from today's woke progressives. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.
Did Salyer simply forget to mention that Orwell declared himself to be a Socialist and was at one time an editor at a socialist paper? At the same time, Orwell's experiences in life allowed him to escape ideological tribalism seen in his honest criticisms of socialists and, in particular, totalitarian rule whether it was on right seen in Nazism or the "left" as seen in what the Soviet Union called Communism.
Orwell quite a bit of time living in the lower economic classes and gained sincere sympathy for them.
As for patriotism and nationalism, their definitions depend on the point a person wants to make. When we define nationalism simply as self-rule, then who could object? The British did when it came to India as did the US when it came to a number of left-leaning democracies. But the above descriptions of nationalism shows its ugly side and should be outrightly objected.
But is patriotism really an obstacle or an enabler of nationalism. For how can one's belief that one's own nation and way of life is the best not become an opiate for the ugly side of nationalism when one sees how interconnected and interdependent nations are on each other? Can't those dependencies and the differences between nations make those nations into at least potential threats to one's own best place in the world and thus justifying the ugly side of nationalism in the nation that is superior to others.
And where does the belief in the superiority of one's own nation and way of life get its grounding in people who never travelled to other places? Here we should note that, in the definition of patriotism, the line 'belief in the superiority of one's own place and way of life,' does not appear to be a quote from Orwell. So is there is disconnect here between Orwell's view of patriotism and what Salyer attributes to him?
Having read very brief biographical material on Orwell, my own feeling is that either one must disagree with Orwell's views on patriotism or that there is a significant differene between Orwell's views patriotism and what Salyer described them to be. Here we should note that the part of the description of patriotism of the belief in the superiority of one's own nation and 'way of life' may have reflected Salyer's view of patriotism more than Orwell's.
One final note, the attempts to align or distance an independent thinker like Orwell with or against any group is more of an anti-Orwellian move. Why? It is because such an attempt is nothing more than an authoritarian tactic. And Orwell was quite opposed to authoritarianism. And that is especially true when it comes to using straw man descriptions of the group one is targeting like what Salyer uses for woke progressives.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 16
To Pat Buchanan and his article that complains about the EU demanding that Hungary give equal rights to those in he LGBT community or Hungary must leave the EU. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
What if there was an EU back in the 1950s and the US was a member. But the leader of the EU told the US: 'Back equal rights for Blacks or leave.' Would Buchanan complain about that demand?
The basic idea around tolerance is that there are acceptable differences. And the question is whether we should insist on there being tolerance in a society which consists of believers and unbelievers. Without tolerance in a society, there can be no democracy. But Buchanan is arguing for is that tolerance in the EU means that the EU must accept those nations where Christians are allowed to show no tolerance for certain unbelievers.
Those societies where a religious minority or majority are allowed to dictate their terms to unbelievers do not believe in freedom, they believe in privilege. For freedom - equality = privilege. What Christians are enjoying in those societies are not what some unbelievers are enjoying.
Furthermore, what Buchanan is defending is what some Muslims defend in nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia. If either of those nations were in the European continent and wanted to join the EU, would the EU be wrong in demanding that those nations treat their non-Muslim citizens as being equal to their Muslim citizens?
Finally, that Christians rule over society in the way that is being done in Hungary goes against the New Testament. For in a number of places, the New Testament describes society was a place where the Church has no dominion over nor should it.
Quite simply, Buchanan's approach is an authoritarian one. That is because Buchanan himself is an authoritarian. That is how he thinks the US should run. But not only the US, but all other nations too provided that he approves of the leaders who are ruling that way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 17
To R. Scott Clark and his blog article that tries to warn likeminded Christians that the language used by Revoice Theology and some Side B Christians about sexuality is a trap. This appeared in Heidelblog.
What Clark fails to notice is that there are faults on his side of the argument as well as that of the Revoice side.
On the Revoice side, there is no adequate recognition that nature has fallen along with man when Adam sinned. A Christian who follows the Scriptures cannot say that because God, through nature, made them this way and thus their desires are not sinful if they are not carried out.
On the other hand, Clark oversimplifies the dilemma that Side B Christians face. First, he fails to recognize the injustice of the marginalization that those in the LGBT community face in society. While Clark touts natural law, it was natural law before nature fell. Homosexuality is well practiced in the animal kingdom and with benefits to some species. And though Paul correctly says that homosexuality is against nature as God intended, he talks about homosexuality in unbelievers as if it should not surprise anyone. And in I Cor 5, Paul describes a heterosexual sin in ways that make it appear to be a worse sin than homosexuality.
And what Clark doesn't seem to understand about repentance from some sexual sins, such as sinful sexual desires, is that repentance must always be described in the present, continual sense rather than the aorist tense. The way I remember Clark speaking about them in past articles, those currently struggling with homosexual desires should have already repented of those desires and those desires should be gone. We should ask if either Clark or his peers no longer struggle with unbiblical heterosexual desires. For it seems to me that while we are alive on earth, we will remain vulnerable to following to those desires until either we die or the Lord comes again.
It is the hardline position, such as one that Clark takes, one that seems to support the marginalization of the LGBT community in society, for which Clark would use natural law to justify, that has helped push Side B Christians to embrace some of the unbiblical beliefs about themselves which they have.
No comments:
Post a Comment