June 8
To R. Scott Clark and his blog article that rightfully criticizes Stephen Wolfe's view of Christian Nationalism and Kevin DeYoung's view of cultural Christianity. He also commented on Marxism. This appeared in Heidelblog.
I fully agree with Clark when he oppose Wolfe's Christian Nationalism and questions DeYoung's cultural Christianity. He provides sound reasons for his disagreements with them. But when he argues for Natural Law, which in other posts he has claimed is summarized by the 2nd Table of the Law, isn't Clark also vying for some sort of cultural Christianity? For in using the 2nd Table of the Law as a summary for Natural Law, he is promoting a Christian understanding of Natural Law.
When describing how we should react to the LGBT rights, Clark doesn't seem to fully notice that nature might be giving us mixed messages. For same-sex behavior (SSB) has been observed in 1,500 species of animals where SSB has produced positive result for at least some of those species. Clark doesn't include that when he also talks about how attributing homosexuality to genetic or biological causes have failed. In addition, there are physiological factors that contribute to gender dysphoria of which Clark seems unaware. And so it seems that Clark's attribution of these conditions to fallen nature refers to our sinful nature. Thus, we are dealing with a Christian theological understanding of the physical world which would be imposed on those from the LGBT community. And because it is a theological understanding, that understanding is incomplete because even scientists are not sure of all of the physical factors involved in either homosexuality and gender dysphoria. Resisting or opposing the equality for the LGBT community based on a Christian understanding of natural law promotes an imposition of Christian morals on the LGBT community in society. And so his use of natural law here would put him in the same league as those who call for a cultural Christianity.
Finally American conservative Christian theologians must realize that commenting on Marx and Marxism is not in their wheelhouse. Why? It is because they can only interpret Marx and Marxism from an antithetical capitalist viewpoint. That makes it difficult for them to identify a real Marxist regime. And Clark seems content on not relying on any Marxists for input. For if he read Gorbachev, he would acknowledge that authoritarian regimes that the Soviet Union starting with Stalin, Red China, North Korea and so forth were never Marxists to begin with. If he used Chomsky or the left Marxists of Lenin's time, he would also exclude Lenin's regime as being Marxist.
It is good that Clark rejects Wolfe's Christian Nationalism and that he questions DeYoung's cultural Christianity. But he is unaware of the similarities that his own position has with at least the cultural Christianity of transformationalists like DeYoung. And one of the reasons for Clark's lack of awareness is his sources for the above topics are inadequate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 13
David Deavel and his reposted article that uses an article called Woke Capitalism Is Capitalism as an introduction to determine whether Capitalism is woke. Though Deavel answers in the negative, the information he uses to answer the question is wholly inadequate. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
To determine whether Capitalism is woke, one only needs to consider its history in this country. For example, our labor history, and even the present, does not show that Capitalism is woke. Our labor history is full of blood and violence by capitalists who, in an effort to maximize profits, treated workers horribly until they were forced to do otherwise. Under Capitalism, businesses used to employed children in, what for them were, dangerous settings. They overworked their employees while underpaying them, and they used violence and the law to silence dissent. See, Capitalism's stakeholders consist of more than just the consumers.
Throughout the history of American Capitalism, businesses have polluted the environment and have tried to escape accountability for doing so. Under Capitalism, corporationss have offshored jobs regardless of how it affected its employees and their communities. And they did so in order to maximize profits. Under Capitalism, corporations have sought to garner government business with the military industrial complex, the pharmaceutical industrial complex, and the prison industrial complex, just the name some examples, in order to maximize profits. Under Capitalism, corporations have used lobbyists to gain favors with government officials in order to reduce or eliminate both their taxes and regulations governing how they will treat employees and customers. And they do so in order to maximize profits.
The above list is a partial list of corporate activities that are anti-woke, rather than woke. How is it that Capitalism can be considered woke? Is it because they are now using their power in order to promote equality for the LGBT community? Here, we need to look at what is being protested. Again, we should remember how businesses once used their power to comply and even promote Jim Crow laws and culture. We should remember how before a recent court decision, homosexuals did not have any legal protection from harassment at work or even dismissal from their jobs in the majority of states.
The problem with the above article in answering the question of whether Capitalism is woke is that its scope of corporate activities used in answering the question is very small. In addition, the above article seems to reduce Capitalism solely to what it offers consumers. The stakeholders of Capitalism include far more groups of people than just a business's customers. We could even count the environment as a stakeholder of Capitalism. And the above article left out the basic motivation and ethic that is promoted and practiced under Capitalism: the maximization of profits. Does that sound woke to you?
In the above article, it's not Deavel's answer that is the problem, it is his method. His method is totally inadequate to adequately answer the question.
No comments:
Post a Comment