April 3
To R. Scott Clark and D.G. Hart for Scott's blog article that quotes a part of Hart's WSJ article on the subject of Christian Nationalism. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Hart's article can be found at:
Not having a chance to read the whole article, I will comment only on what is quoted above. The trouble is that when Christian Nationalism is brought up, one is tempted to think in terms of extremes. For example, some are tempted to think of dominionism. The above article describes scenarios that are less extreme than that but it still portrays Christian Nationalism in somewhat strong terms.
Now if we replace the word 'Nationalism' with the word 'control,' we allow for a wider range of attempted Christian power over the state and society. For there the question becomes how much control should Christians exercise over the state and society while still have a democracy. Of course, then we have to define the word 'democracy.'
So just because a group of Christians don't support or promote Christian nationalism doesn't mean that they are not in favor of enough Christian control over the state and society to the extent that it would at least partially compromise our democracy. We should note that because of the control that has been and continues to be exerted by others over the state and society, our democracy is already sorely compromised.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 4
To Chuck Chalberg and his article on M. Stanton Evans and his love of conservatism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
A sign that a favored ideology has become a religion is when one believes that they have nothing to learn from any other ideology in that sphere. Such a belief implies that that ideology is omniscient. Just think, we sometimes believe that which was created by man can have an infinite view of reality.
I've lived near urban areas in the East for most of my life but I did attend and graduate from a college in Oklahoma. One of the differences I noticed between those two settings is that while the former provided more of a heterogeneous environment in terms of demographics, the latter was more homogeneous. That disparity causes some to not only to misunderstand the decisions that people from the other side make, it causes them to religiously elevate their own setting on a pedestal that can be idolatrously high. I hope that is not the case here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 5
To Cory Higdon and his article that asks how much pluralism and our society tolerate and still survive. In that article he points to what Roger Williams attempted to create in Rhode Island. This appeared in the American Reformer.
Of course the alternative to what Williams wanted to establish was to be found in Massachusetts where Puritans were persecuting and even martyring Quakers.
This intolerance and fear of those who are different seems to be a fixed cost of the human condition. It exists in pluralistic settings as well as in monistic settings. And thus the question of how much pluralism can be tolerated seems to be the question of the intolerant as the ponder when they should entitled to seize control. And let's face it, us religiously conservative Christians lean more towards being intolerant than being open and accepting. It is part of our authoritarian bend.
So perhaps before answering the question of how pluralism can we tolerate, we could look at Europe to see how much pluralism they are tolerating. We need to look at Europe today rather than Rhode Island of yesteryear because we are more similar to Europe in the present than to the colonies from the past.
We could also look at the context of some of the practices we find so distasteful to see how long they will exist before being changed. I would point this out, the Apostolic Christian Church had to tolerate far more differences in society than we do. So how did the Apostles and those who followed them respond to the difference they had with society?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 7
To R. Scott Clark and Carl Trueman for Clark's blogpost that quotes from a book by Trueman that, in part, complains about how what was once considered to be unassailable truth is now being called into question and traded in for fantasy. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Both traditionalists, regardless of one's tradition, and old people often depend too much on the past to interpret and respond to the present. And it seems that is the case here. In the good old days, what was unassailable was white supremacy and it had a more pervasive presence in society and our culture than it has today. The LGBT community had to hide because their expressions of love for their partners were considered criminal acts. What was also unassailable was the subjugation of women by men even after women won the right to vote. The sexual revolution was in large part a response to that oppression.
So what we are seeing today is quite normal for when long standing social injustices are being addressed. For not only are many of the social injustices being undone, but many practices associated, either in a contributory sense or coincidentally, with those injustices are being challenged too. And the same goes for the long overdue stopping of societal and state persecution of the LGBT community.
Trueman's error here is that he sees only one time period in which people are employing the looking glass. In reality, each time period, including the good old days, employed its own looking glasses. So what we are seeing, in some cases, is a trading in of one looking glass for another.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 8
To Christopher Owen and his article on Willmoore Kendall's evolving view on democracy. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
People who think in absolutes have trouble making distinctions. And that seems to be the problem that Willmoore Kendall had according to Christopher Owen.
With the definition of democracy, for example, Kendall could have gone the cultural Marxist way of defining it. After all, that definition is based on what Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural address. Jefferson advocated majority rule but warned against using majority rule to oppress minority groups in the nation. We should note here that Jefferson's words were superior to his actions. The cultural Marxist definition of democracy is found in neither the equality of either outcomes nor opportunities. Rather, the cultural Marxist view of democracy is found in the equality of ownership in that democracy is a a state of being where the state and society belongs equally to all groups. Such a view of democracy provides an adequate defense against what has been called ethnic democracies or ethnocracies where democratic means are used to provide some degree of dominance by and privilege for some ethnic group(s) over any minority ethnic groups.
And if only Kendall had borrow Yates notes on the Constitutional Convention, he might have noted that Madison favored the rule of rich, as did those who favored the Federalist position. For the Federalists used a the word 'democracy' as a pejorative for those who held to different political-economic views that would challenge the financial privilege of America's elites. In fact, it was Shays Rebellion and widespread dissent because of the poor economics of that time that spurred the writing of The Constitution.
It seems that without referring to democracy as a state of being, as an equality in ownership by all ethnic groups that make up the people, we miss what democracy and equality are really all about.
No comments:
Post a Comment