Feb 24
To W. Robert Godfrey and his adult class presentation on the end of Christendom and the effects of that end. This was posted on the Abounding Grace Radio website.
The more I listen to this series by Godrey, the more I am disappointed by his lack of scholarly approach to the subjects and groups he discusses. How much has Godfrey studied or knows about Darwin, Marx, Freud, CRT, BLM, the Finnish Bishop who is on trial in Finland for hate speech, and so on. In some of these cases, Godfrey states that he is not that familiar with these groups, people, or ideologies and yet he speaks as if he understands the core issues involved. In other cases, he simply demonstrates that lack of familiarity by what he says about them.
But what Godfrey lacks in familiarity, he more than makes up with in presenting the traditional conservative view of and response to these different groups, people, and movements. In that, Godfrey demonstrates a lack of awareness of the key weakness of any traditionalist regardless of the ideology that traditionalist belongs to. For that key weakness is that traditionalists, whether they are conservatives, liberals, or leftists, rely too much on the past to understand and respond to the present.
Are the people, ideologies, or movements really at odds with each other? Are they all reductionistic? Considering that Marx and Freud were not contemporaries and their specialties were in different subjects, it is a bit premature to say that they or their ideas opposed each other. But we do get a sort of marriage between the two in Frankfort School, which Godfrey never mentioned. Or while Godfrey mentions all of the chief sins that have been identified and addressed by different movements and his hope that these different movements would spend their time attacking each other, Intersectionality weds the concerns of the various groups that have been oppressed. Godfrey never mentions that. In fact, while Godfrey seems to state that BLM is only concerned with black lives, such is not the case since it is also embraces intersectionality.
When talking about the Finnish Bishop who is on trial for hate speech because of what was said about homosexuals, is Godfrey aware that the key evidence, the pamphlet about the supposed Christian view of sex, not only says that it speaks for the Bible, it also claims to speak science in stating that homosexuality is a threat to society? Is that the Christian view? It isn't the view of science? And so is it the Christian view of homosexuality that is investigated there or a view of homosexuality by a particular Christian who misspoke for at least science if not for Christianity. Yes, homosexuality is a sin, but so is idolatry. And so do we classify other religions as a threat to society?
And having known people in BLM, I am puzzled as to who in BLM thinks that only black lives matter?
Finally, Godfrey seems unaware of the distinction that CRT makes between personal racist views and racism. Why does it make that distinction? It is because despite the bigotry suffered by ethnic groups of whites such as the Irish and the Italians, both of whom Godfrey mentions, their experiences with racial, or more precisely ethnic, oppression does not compare in magnitude or structure with the oppression that blacks have faced in this nation. CRT acknowledges that everyone is vulnerable to having personal racist attitudes and beliefs. But none of the other groups that Godfrey mentioned has the kind or depth of race-based oppression faced by blacks in this nation. None of the groups Godfrey mentioned faced the combination of systemic racism along with widespread racist views and beliefs expressed by individuals.
It is true that those other groups do not mention sin and the need for salvation in Christ. But then again, that is not the sphere in which they operate. In the meantime, we all need to understand the Post Modern criticism of those who claim to have exclusive knowledge of the truth. We don't have to nor should agree with Post Modernism's response to those who claim to have exclusive knowledge of the truth. But we need to understand that criticism lest we practice those attitudes and actions that Post Modernism rightly identifies as problems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 25
To R. Scott Clark and Jon Payne for Clark's article that consists of a substantial quote of Jon Payne's article lamenting the defeat of Overtures #23 and #37 in the PCA. Those overtures would have prohibited Christian men who struggle with Same Sex Attraction (SSA) but remain celibate from hold offices in the PCA. Clark's article appeared in Heidelblog.
Jon Payne's article can be found at:
https://gospelreformation.net/reality-check-the-future-of-the-pca/
I am glad that the Overtures #23 and #37 were defeated. They targeted those who have been struggling with homosexual desires with a similar marginalization in the PCA that has, until recently, been employed against the LGBT community in society for most of America's history. In fact, with the way that those supporting the overtures appeared to be looking down on those struggling with SSA, you would have thought that that those who struggle with SSA were spiritual lepers who would spread their disease to others in the denomination.
The real issue here is one of comfort. Those who supported the overtures expressed tremendous discomfort with having to work as equals with those they perceive to be a spiritual threat and inferior. That discomfort also use to exist in society and was a cause for society's past marginalization of homosexuals. So perhaps the failure of those overtures to pass illustrate that those supporting the overtures had not proved their claim that Side B Christians are a threat or inferior. Thus, the failure of the overtures might be a sign of maturity by many who opposed them.
Also, Jon Payne's article laments over the fact that the PCA is now becoming progressive. And perhaps that lament itself illustrates part of the problem with those supporting the overtures. Here we should note that Payne doesn't say why being progressive is bad. Rather, he uses the word as a pejorative label. Such a use of pejoratives is both authoritarian and, logically speaking, begs the question. In addition, such a use clearly signals an intolerance of the political positions that many who voted for the overtures are not willing to tolerate in the denomination. Thus, that warning might illustrate one reason why those supporting the overtures appear to have not proved why their fears of Side B Christians are justified.
What is overlooked by those supporting the overtures is the magnitude of the spiritual and moral battle Side B Christians face and the internal turmoil they live with because they want something that is unnatural. Those who remain celibate are exhibiting a level of resolve that many of the rest of us may not have. And their internal suffering goes unrecognized because we don't know what nature is saying them on the inside. Here we should note that nature is fallen. We know that the design of nature speaks against their desires. But does fallen nature say to them through their minds and bodies?
Hopefully, the PCA will both resist the calls to counter the defeat of the overtures called for by the writer of the article and will hold a firm line on celebacy for those struggling with SSA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 28
To Joseph Musomelli and his article that tells us not to demonize Russia for its actions toward the Ukraine. His article was written in 2017 in reference to the annexation of Crimea and was reposted on the Imaginative Conservative blog
The above article needs updating. It needs to include the current invasion of the Ukraine as well as the inclusion of some forgotten items from the past as well as Russia's own current state of affairs.
There is no justification for the invasion of the Ukraine. Citing similar past actions by the West, especially by the US, can only serve to indict the West for those actions rather than minimize the evil that Russia is practicing.
Of course pushing NATO eastward is a possible contributing factor to the invasion. But note Putin's logic in appealing to historic ties between Russia and the Ukraine. Such an appeal is used to justify his unilateral decision of absorbing the Ukraine into Russia and doing so at a high human and moral cost. Using NATO's expansion to justify or minimize the Russian invasion would be somewhat comparable to using the effects of the Versailles Treaty to do the same with Hitler's conquest of Western Europe.
Also, we need to consider Putin's past actions to determine what this invasion of the Ukraine reveals. Considering Putin's harsh treatment of Chechnya, the deadly silencing of critics within its own nation, and denying the emergence of viable competing political parties and candidates makes the invasion of the Ukraine seem more consistent with a pattern of deep authoritarianism rather than with that of serving any legitimate self-interest.
Finally, this invasion puts Putin's western religiously conservative Christian fans in a dilemma. For on the one hand, these fellow Christians of mine see the relationship between Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church as a model for the relationship they want to have between their respective governments and the Church. And yet, they know that this invasion is wrong. But for them to admit how wrong it is is being compromised by how they view the relationship between Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 7
To Joseph Mussomeli and his article analyzing the current situation of Russia's invasion of the Ukraine and Western Europe's response. It is an excellent article that merits reading. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
There are so many points to agree with in the above article. The culpability of the West as well as the immoral actions taken by Russia are 2 such points. Also we should note the hypocritical practices of the US as well as the understandable perception of a threat and betrayal felt by Russia are more points that accepted and continually meditated on.
But blaming our actions on childishness is unhelpful not only because such labeling is imprecise, but it is also because it misses a common theme of the actions taken by the 2 adversaries in the ring which could actually be responded to.. The common theme that is driving both Putin and the NATO nations toward the precipice is the truth that the predominant flaw of both traditionalists and many old people is that they rely too much on the past to interpret and respond to the present.
That flaw is not just making more than a cameo appearance in this conflict. It permeates how Russia is governed by Putin and it is even more evident here at home as we watch our fellow countrymen, who passionately embrace and pride themselves in American Capitalism and Individualism so that they are unable to accept the threats that climate change and the pandemic pose. Such Americans can't accept the realities of those threats because doing so would mean changing too much from how they did thing in the past. And we also saw this reluctance to change when many American whites fought vigorously to resist efforts of the Civil Rights Movement during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. In fact, the current systemic racism that still exists is evidence that that resistance is still alive.
We should also note that Russia has been a thug nation under Putin for a long while. But much of that thuggery is exhibited internally and it is increasingly reminiscent of that which existed under most of the former Soviet leaders And so after knowing how many nuclear apocalyptic bullets we dodged under the Cold War, one would think that we would no longer rely on Cold War thinking and strategies of trying to surround an adversarial super power as much as possible in an attempt to control it.
And Putin is relying too much on the past in seeing the degree of threat that exists if the Ukraine actually becomes a member of NATO. Such an occurrence, though very insensitive to Russia's past in more than one way, does not pose the same threat that nations from the West posed to Russia in past centuries. Thus, the urgency seen in Russia's response to today's Ukraine is based on its over reliance on the past.
Certainly there is the opposite danger of relying too little on the past to interpret and respond to the present. And so a balance must be struck. But it seems that the driving force for both NATO and Putin cantering together toward the precipice is an over reliance on the past, not a childishness, in how they are interpreting and responding to the present.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 8
To Chris Gordon and his short article that gives an example of a anti-war Ukrainian being made to swallow his theoretical stand against war to the physical reality of the Russian invasion. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio website.
Of course, who will be a conditional fan of war if the world's reaction to the invasion leads to Russia resorting to using nuclear weapons.
Traditionalists of all ideologies and national identities along with old people share the same predominant fault: they rely too much on the past to understand and respond to the present. An ignored message from the past tells us our choice about continuing to rely on war to achieve our purposes (see https://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/85russein.pdf ):
Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?1 People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.
The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty.
If you note the number of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed on to the document (8 out of the 11 who signed the document) from which the above quote comes from, you will see that the Russell-Einstein Manifesto should be continually consulted before going off to war. After all, it is a document for the nuclear age. Also perhaps we should see war for what it does to its participants. For all too often, war makes us choose between military defeat and moral suicide.
No comments:
Post a Comment