Jan 11
To R. Scott Clark and his article that harshly judges the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) for allowing ministers to employ portraits of Christ. Clark believes that this is a violation of the 2nd Commandment forbidding images to be used in worship. This appeared in Heidelblog.
With the pedestal that many Reformed Christian ministers, elders, theologians, and laypeople have placed under the Westminster Confessions and Catechisms and other like documents, we might want to consider whether placing those documents on such a pedestal is itself a violation of the 2nd Commandment. It could be such a violation in the way that the traditions of the Pharisees (see Mark 7) became a substitute for God's Word.
But it's not only that, it is extremely disconcerting to hear the same theologians condemn social justice activists for confusing law and the Gospel when these activists are sometimes trying to mitigate horrific social injustices these theologians also harshly judge the use of musical instruments in the Church as well as those who resort to using or allow others to use images or portraits of Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 12
To Jerry Sayler and his review of a book by Charles Murray on race. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Though I agree with the writer that Murray relies too much on American individualism in his explanation, to point out the disparities that Murray does between the races without considering, as far as I can tell from the above article, the roles that other pertinent variables, like economic class, history, and subcultural variables, might play in those measurements and thus conclude certain difference between the races is racial opportunism. Such would make any person who belongs to a racially privileged group a racist of significant degree. Again, that assessment depends on whether Murray has not fairly factored in the variables mentioned in this response.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 13
To R. Scott Clark and his blog post that, while reviewing an article that criticized Machen for his racism, seemed to have lessened the significance of sin of that racism because of the times and the place where Machen grew up. This appeared in Heidelblog.
There is problems with Clark's semi-defense of Machen. The first problem is with his treatment of Machen's cultural and family background. Machen did have a family history of members having supported or fought for the Confederates. Machen and family grew up in the South. Machen grew up in a privileged setting both in terms of race and economics.
And yet, what if we heeded Clark's admonition to not be anachronistic and applied that those struggling with sexual sins? What if Paul said to the Corinthians who lived in a society where there was rampant sexual immorality, 'try not to commit adultery, but if you do, then it is understandable'? And yet, that is not how Paul spoke to neither the Corinthians when he said that the sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom of God nor to the Romans when he said do not conform to the world.
The other problem with Scott's semi-defense of Machen is that he forgot the context of Machen's need to speak out for racism in his published works. It was during the Jim Crow era. How many times did Machen need to speak out and take a stand for segregation and racism during during that time especially when Machen's focus was on theological issues. And yet, what was Machen willing to say about Warfield, and who knows what he said on the Princeton campus, when Warfield wanted to integrate the Princeton dorms? And if we want to bypass Machen, there is always the issue of slavery and the beliefs and/or practices of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield to contend with. Yes, Clark condemned Machen for his racism. But does he do that in the same way that he condemns side-B Christians? How serious, in Clark's view, is the sin of racism in comparison to sexual immorality?
Clark misses what is to be learned from Machen's example of racism because he is too busy understanding Machen's racism so that Machen doesn't lose his authority to speak to us today. On a side note, that brings up the issue of partiality on Clark's part. But the lesson is this, we Christians are vulnerable to serious sins and yet, because of God's rich grace and mercy, we are still bound to Christ. And once we realize that, we can show what can be learned from the parable of the man whose great debt was forgiven much but he could not forgive another person of a small debt We should add that we could never forgive others of more and greater sins than what God has forgiven us of.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 18
To Mark Malvasi and his article on liberalism in government has maintained the racism and poverty that still plagues this nation. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Mulvasi's attack on liberalism, not to be confused with the liberalism of the Democratic Party, while citing Martin Luther King Jr is self-sabotaging. The problem is that his citing of King is very selective and very small. And thus he ends up criticizing some of what King promoted.
But before addressing that, there is another issue to consider. It is Mulvasi's statement on biological support for racial differences that is the problem:
If there is no biological support for racial differences, then there is no biological justification for racial inequality.
Here we might ask why must differences imply inequality, in general, the the superiority of one group over the other in particular. For the real problem with the belief in superiority is that it results in one group feeling entitled to rule over others regardless if the differences are in race, religions and ideologies, language, economic classes, ethnicities or other factors. In reality, it is one group's feeling entitled to rule over others that is the basic cause of continued racism.
While Mulvasi criticizes Democratic liberal ill-advised attempts on making a government part of the solution to racism, he attributes to King the belief that we all have choices and those choices have consequences. But King also supported some of the Democratic liberal inspired government programs that Mulvasi condemned. While Mulvasi condemned those programs because of what it did to individual effort, King promoted government intervention through laws that protected people of color from individual acts of prejudice. King also supported the welfare state and even promoted the idea of a guaranteed income.
While Mulvasi favors, in contrast to government intervention on individuals, 'competitive individualism' and unrestrained enterprise, earlier he complains that Classical Liberals leave the poor at the mercy of mercy of the market and that the post CIvil War wealthy opposed the redistribution of wealth which was part of Thaddeus Stevens's plans that would have secured 'economic welfare' and rights for Blacks and whites while promoting 'unrestrained enterprise.
Forgotten is King's statement on property rights:
I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
Forgotten is King's statement on Capitalism when he compared it with Communism. For in <i>Stride Toward Freedom</i> King described Capitalism as having forgotten that life is social while noting that Communism forgot that life is individual. King also promoted government welfare and training programs that were threatened, according to King, by increased spending on the Vietnam War. King actually proposed a guaranteed income for Americans. Also forgotten is King's reliance on laws and programs passed to impeded racism and help those in need.
Finally, while Mulvasi tells us that to eliminate racism and poverty, we must rely on the collective consciousness of Americans and 'competitive individuals and unrestrained enterprise,' the past has seemingly forever overall given members of one race an advantage over those from other races. Thus Mulvasi's solution is like judging a 440 race where some runners start at the beginning, others start at the 110 mark while others start at the 220 mark solely by who finishes in the top places. The result can be nothing more than the maintenance of the status quo. In addition, to rely on America's collective consciousness to eliminate racism forgets not only the headlines of yesteryear, but those of this year as well. Sentimental tribal ties to the past have too well fragmented America's collective consciousness.
It is difficult here to determine whether Mulvasi recognizes that what he proposes is based on a romanticized view of beliefs that have played a significan role in maintaining the racism that we see today.
No comments:
Post a Comment