Jan 18
To Harrison Perkins and his article that reviews a collection of Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies on the continuity the Scriptures. This appeared in the Heidelblog.
My problem with the above article is not with references to Reformed doctrine and the contributions made in Church History, it is the pedestal on which we put those sources which is the problem. If the pedestal is too small, we end up refusing to learn from the past. But if the pedestal is too big, we make Reformed doctrine and selected contributions from Church History a canon above the canon with the latter canon being the Scriptures. This is precisely what the Pharisees did with their traditions as condemned by Jesus in Mark 7.
When we have a canon above the canon of the Scriptures and we start to depend on eisogesis when reading the Scriptures while the uninspired, that which is not God-breathed, becomes paramount in determining what is God-breathed can say. We need to realize the many mistakes made in Church History and how, unlike with the writing of the Scriptures, cultural and psychological and situational influences could partially corrupt how past Church History heroes misunderstood the Scriptures.
I understand the reluctance to part company with what has been said by many past Church History heroes. That reluctance stems from a fear that we will stray too far from the faith they proclaimed. But that potential problem is solved by distinguishing the essential teachings of the Reformed faith from the non-essential teachings. It isn't that such distinction do not already exist; it is that not enough distinctions have been made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 19
To the Heidelblog and its reproduction of the Edict of the Emperors Grati, Valentinian II, and Theodosius I which made Christianity as the state religion in its time.
It seems that the plague of authoritarianism in Christianity goes back a long way. And authoritarianism doesn't have to be as extreme as what is portrayed above to damage and sabotage how we both live in the Church and carry out the Great Commission.
In addition, we can see some of where Calvin and Luther got their bombastic tendencies from.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 22
To David Eisenberg and his article that defends the conservative notion of America from what he claims are the efforts by Democrats to imitate what was done in the French Revolution by destroying America's past and remaking the whole nation. This article was posted in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Comparisons depend on being selective in noting the similarities between objects. However, selectivity can be used to try to make comparisons that, for the point they are used to support, use incomparable objects. That is especially true when a small set of similarities are used to support generalizations. And that is the problem with comparing the French Revolutionaries with the democrats.
The democrats want to undo America? Really? Those of us who lean toward Marx don't believe that. Rather, we see more similarities between the Democrats and the Republicans than between us and the Democrats. And that is despite the culture war issues on which we can agree with the Democrats. In the end, the Democrats, like the Republicans, believe in Capitalism and American Hegemony. The Democrats and the Republicans protect the wealthy from paying their fair share and they both support a malignantly high spending on defense, only part of which is in the DOD appropriations.
But let's get to the basic differences between the Democrats and today's Republicans. The Democrats also believe that government should protect its people from having their rights infringed on by elites in the private sector. Today's Republicans believe that only government can infringe on people's rights and thus their call for a "limited government" gives many elites in the private sector privileges that both only those elites have and that infringes on the rights of the people. The history of labor unions in this nation testifies to that as does the current battle to acknowledge climate change let alone do something about it. And the current battle over CRT in education shows that some Republicans believe in the overreach of government.
But more importantly, let's look at the key paragraph from this essay:
The truth is that for all its failings, America has provided more opportunity, security, and freedom to a group of people more diverse than any other nation in history. There is a reason why people come to these shores, why they risk and sacrifice so much in doing so, and why they have been doing so for centuries. It is not because America is systemically rotten; but because it is foundationallY good. Justice for all calls for those foundations to be defended, not destroyed.
If America is judged good by how many people it has provided freedom to, then the America could not have always been judged to be good from its very beginning up through the days of the Civil Rights Movement. And today's debate about racism is whether there is a systemic racism that continues to rob people of opportunities, security, and equality based on race--and one could include class here.
America provides more opportunity, security, and freedom now because those who lacked such had to either figuratively or literally fight, sometimes to the death, to obtain those things. And if we look at the government founded by The Constitution, we discover that it was founded in response to widespread dissent and actions, like Shays Rebellion, to protect America's then new elites from the anger of many common people. And note the continuity between many the contributors to The Constitution and today's Republicans: to orchestrate a government that protects the elites while ignoring many of the voices of the people.
While the above essay seems to see America's only fault as being the institution of slavery, it forgets that slavery was allowed and based on the belief in white supremacy. And that white supremacy survived the institution of slavery and what is being debated today is whether it has survived the Jim Crow era. And if we include other minorities, such as Native American, we see that Blacks were not the only victims of white supremacy. And that does not include the oppression of women, economic classism, and the oppression of the LGBT community in society.
No comments:
Post a Comment