Around Oct 5
To R. Scott Clark and E. J. Hutchinson for Clark's blogpost that cites hutchinson's article that calls for the 2nd table of the Decalogue to become the law of the land. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
Hutchinson's article can be found at:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/yes-bring-back-the-decalogue/
Let's see, according to what some Christian commentators and writers have said before, Christians should reject the teachings of social-justice warriors because these warriors don't understand the law/Gospel distinction but let's have the government prosecute or let citizens sue (a.k.a., civil court vigilantism) those who commit adultery because there is a prohibition against adultery is in the Decalogue. But wait, there's more. Some these same Christians believe that the use of musical instruments in the worship of God is passed because it only belongs in the Old Testament and thus this provides another confusion between the law and the Gospel.
Or let Christian businesspeople exercise their freedom of religion by refusing to fully serve the LGBT community, but because many Christians believe that the 2nd table of the Decalogue should be the law of the land, then the prohibition against adultery and related sins should be the law of the land. But wait, there is more. We should not, according to 2Kers, want a return to Christendom.
But what about those who do not, because of their religion or lack thereof, believe that not all of the Ten Commandments should be law of the land? Also, remember how adultery is defined in the Scriptures. How much of that definition should become law of the land? Or what about the other parts of the 2nd Table? Should we prosecute each instance of a person who, either as a child or adult, does not honor their parents as the Scriptures have defined that? Or how should we enforce a law that prohibits coveting?
Of course, the response from some Christian leaders have to any objections because of our guaranteed freedoms is that governments should enforce the 2nd Table of the Decalogue because it is Natural Law. But Natural Law as defined by whom? Is it Natural Law as defined by the Church? After all, if we look to nature as a source for Natural Law, then homosexuality should be accepted because of the number of species of animals, approximately 1,500, in which homosexuality is practiced. Also, for my fellow Christians, is it the New Testament that tells us that the Christian definition for Natural Law should become the law of the land or is it our theology that says that? What can we learn here from I Corinthians 5?
And if we are going to enforce the 2nd Table of the Decalogue, why shouldn't we include the 1st Table, or at least parts of it, too? Oh, we did that with the Blue Laws.
Of course, the real problem here is in the title and subtitle of the above article: 'Two Millenia of Western History' is speaking to the Michigan AG, and to the rest of the nation. Also, 'We all expected the Magistrate to enforce the 2nd table of the Decalogue.' Is that a according to I Corinthians 5; Mark 6:7-11; and Matthew 20:25-28? Was that true of all Christians for two Millenia?
One of the problems here is that many of us religiously conservative American Christians refuse to see the contradiction that exists between the desire expressed in the above article and the 1st Amendment guaranteeing the freedom of religion. Another problem is that many of us religiously conservative American Christians refuse to see how our desires for making the 2nd Table of the Decalogue the law of the land, especially with their focused concern on sexual sins, all but confirms our tendency to passionately embrace the authoritarian personality type. And the problem there is that it was Germans with that personality type who supported and remained loyal to person who was not just a dictator, but a monster.
What the above article also says to me is that too many of us religiously conservative American Christians want a controlling hand over America. We want a return to the 'good ol days' of Christianity having a place of supremacy over society. And the above article reveals something else. It reveals why many of us religiously conservative American Christians interpret opposition to our control over society as persecution. Many of us interpret opposition to our control over society that way because we feel exclusively entitled to determine what should and should not the law of the land.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 8
To John Horvat and his article on why Christians are not responsible for the fall of our liberal society even though they judge people and seek to stop certain types of immorality the way they do. He says this because of GOd's anger toward sin. This was in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
The Liberals are right and Horvat is wrong. Why? It isn't because the lifestyles of those in the LGBT community should be rejected by believers nor that CRT has flaws. The real problem is that Horvat and some other fellow believers in Christ cannot make an adequate distinction either between society and the Church or the roles of today's society in New Testament times and those of Israel in the Old Testament. Church discipline is for those who claim that they are members of the Church via their faith in Jesus Christ. Church discipline is not to extend to society either directly or through a proxy.
The Scriptures that deal with Church discipline are very helpful here. Read what I Cor 5: 9-13 says about a Church disciplinary case:
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
It is not for us to shun or seek to marginalize sexually immoral unbelievers. According to Paul, to do so would mean that we would have to leave the world or rule over it by what is implied by our actions. And those who leave the world cannot help carry out the Great Commission. Those who seek to force certain morals on unbelievers are not following Jesus's instructions that he gave to His disciples.
It is a rigid intolerance, much of it shown by conservative elements of the Church, that is significantly responsible for destroying society today. When we demand that people who do not share our faith must, nonetheless, follow our rules, we are exhibiting our own control issues, which are sometimes driven by our own fears and weaknesses. And that desire to label others as evil and ourselves as good is used to make us feel entitled, or even obligated, to seek to punish unbelievers who cross the red lines we have drawn for them.
Elective abortion must be stopped, but we must also be careful in how we stop it. But CRT is evil? Marx had nothing worthwhile to contribute? The LGBT community is evil has no relative giid, compared to us, good in it? Do we understand the pedestal we have put ourselves on when we believe those things? That pedestal alone is a big enough stumbling block that shuts the ears of many unbelievers from listening to the Gospel. Now we want to add our trying to control society so that it does what we command it to do in God's name?
We need to look in a non-magic mirror to see what we really look like. For when we build such pedestals for ourselves and look to punish unbelievers for being different from us, we might very well resemble the Pharisee from the parable of the 2 men praying (Luke 18:9-14). For that Pharisee, like us, was very zealous for the law and following the commandments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 9
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that links to a YouTube Project Veritas report on a whistleblower report from Pfizer on the use of cells from a human cell line in the production of Covid-19 vaccines. This appeared in Heidelblog.
This is all old news. This is news that has already been out there. And some of the reasons why Pfizer did not want people to know that cell lines were used in testing are demonstrated by the above video. That is to discourage the use of the Covid vaccines.
We should note that what was used were cells from a fetal cell line, not the fetal cells of an aborted fetus (see https://www.science.org/content/article/abortion-opponents-protest-covid-19-vaccines-use-fetal-cells )--that article also addresses religious objections to using cells from cell lines. And that those cells in that cell line were used in testing, not in the manufacturing, of the mRNA vaccines. We should note that the Youtube presentation started to use cells from an aborted fetus with cells from a fetal cell line interchangeably. That using cells from fetal cell lines is a long standing practice and has been used in other vaccines and some medicines. And as long as cells from an already established cell line are used, there is no incentive to use cells from an aborted fetus and thus no incentive for any fetuses to be aborted.
So what is the violation here? Are we celebrating a certain unnecessary level of sensitivity or are we trying to magnify that sensitivity? Or are we telling people that one's sensitivity to the use of cells from cell lines should be self-examined or are we exploiting what could be a hypersensitivity for other purposes? For example, this blog, Heidelblog, has already published articles that, at least indirectly, promote the use of Ivermectin as a preventative medicine and/or cure for Covid-19. That is despite the fact that Ivermectin is not a proven medicine in the fight against Covid-19.
In addition, we need to consider the source. The factual reporting rating for Project Veritas, the news source of the story is below:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/
No comments:
Post a Comment