March 7
To Heidelblog and Derrick Bride for the part of Bride's article that was quoted in an article about whether Calvin was a Biblicist and whether the Reformed traditions had parts that were more deduced and thus were human conclusions rather than being biblical.
There is more than one danger here that Christians face. Of course, Biblicism is one of those dangers. An example of that can be found in what I overheard a person say that the Bible does not condemn rock music. Perhaps that lack of condemnation is because rock music, as bad as it is, is not as bad as country music.
The other danger is the overuse of deduction when using the Bible and/or our traditions to answer a question. The overuse of deduction can cause us to come to questionable conclusions and even theologies. Christian Nationalism is an example of the overuse of deduction and sometimes it includes an over dependence on our traditions. When, as some have claimed with certainty, that good and evil mentioned in Romans 13 definitely calls on governments to enforce either both tables or just the 2nd table of the 10 Commandments.
The overuse of deduction in our applying the Scriptures to issues and questions could easily be in some parts of the Reformed traditions. And saying that is neither being Biblicist nor being against the Reformed traditions. Saying that is simply acknowledging that because the Reformed traditions are not God's Word, they are subject to being corrupted by human frailties.
We need to be cautious about how we apply the Scriptures to subjects where the Scriptures have either not spoken clearly about or when the contexts of what the Scriptures said clearly differ from today's contexts. One way of being cautious is to check and see if what we have deduced to be true runs counter to Scriptures that we were not considering the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To John Horvat and his article that reviews a book that is critical of Catholic Integralism. This article was posted on the Imaginative Conservative website.
If Liberalism is crumbling, it is because democracy with equality is being threatened internally and externally.
It is being threatened internally because either too many people or the wrong kind of people are now obtaining a fuller equality. Their equality is intolerable to those who believe in authoritarianism with hierarchy--that is provided that one's own group is on top of the hierarchy. And the problem with Integralism is the problem that all other authoritarian ethnocratic movements have. That is without equality, the common good become camouflage for oppression and atrocities. For with every authoritarian ethnocratic movement, there is always at least one group the bottom of the totem pole who will pay the price for the common good that the ethnic group in charge has defined. And we should note that Integralism is just another authoritarian ethnocratic movement. That means that, in a given nation, one ethnic group rules over the nation including all other ethnic groups. And a religious group is an ethnic group.
History shows this to be true; even the history of Christendom shows it so be true. And so all of the self-praise that its adherents in the Roman Church lavish on themselves becomes nothing more than the prayer of the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying (Luke 18:9-14). After all, what was the fruit of Christendom? Didn't it include religious wars, inquisitions, imperialism, colonialism, and ethnic cleansings? And doesn't such a history go beyond the claim that Christendom only lacked perfection? And yet, the Integralist thanks God that they are not like the liberal with the liberal's relativistic values.
Another problem with Integralism that is shared by all authoritarian ethnocratic movements is that the ethnic group in charge assumes that they alone get to define what is the common good. And in taking that position, they have implied that they are either absolutely or relatively omniscient in solving mankind's problems. And that arrogant attitude seems to create dissonance when one hears how loving and caring the integralist claims to be. That arrogant attitude also undercuts the Catholic social teaching that can contribute to society.
The basic structure of even the most devout authoritarian ethnocratic group sabotages the most saintly and sincere intentions. For with the universal value of equality having been swept away, rights become privileges and the voices of those groups at the bottom of the hierarchy have too far to travel to reach the ears of the ethnic group at the top of the hierarchy. Again, the history of Christendom supports that claim.
If what we have of democracy with equality is lost to any authoritarian ethnocratic movement, even the Integralist one, we'll see the history of authoritarian groups repeating itself. The direction in which we need to go is to bring democracy with equality to its full completion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 11
To R. Scott Clark and Augustine's Just War Theory as it applies to the Russian invasion in Ukraine and any conflicts in the world. This was posted by Heidelblog.
Things have changed since Augustine's time that just might require a change in our view of war.
What's changed? The Russell-Einstein Manifesto identified that change and stated the new status quo dictated by advancements in technology. Because of the existence of nuclear weapons, the new status quo tells us that we have a choice between war and survival. That if a nuclear war broke out between the then super powers, mankind would cease to exist except perhaps in some primitive state.
Because that manifesto was written in the 1950s, the only conflict that could cause global catastrophic destruction was a direct war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union wars within or between nations that are linked to the two then superpowers.
But now, more nations have possession of nuclear weapons. And not only that, other weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), such as some biological weapons, could easily become reality in the near future. And because technology is user friendly, the proliferation of WMDs is inevitable. And so in the near future, we could see global catastrophic destruction in conflicts between nations or even non-state actors that are not superpowers at the present time.
What to do? Right now we have no choice in Ukraine. Even if it will be known to be a losing cause, we must support Ukraine against the Russia invasion. If the war is lost, then the cost to Russia's military must be made as high as possible without using WMDs and while avoiding a direct clash between Russia and NATO so as to discourage future invasions.
But our only avenue out of an eventual conflict in which WMDs are employed is to employ the current resources that would enforce the rule of law. All nations must submit to International Law in order for mankind to survive.
Unfortunately, the U.S. will not submit to international law because too many of its leaders believe that doing so compromises its sovereignty. And that is true, if the U.S. submitted to international law it would compromise its sovereignty. But that is true for every nation in the world. And so why should the U.S. be any different?
When the world's greatest superpower does not submit to international law because it feels that it has no need to, other nations, especially those that desire to be known as being powerful, follow suit. That is part of what is going on in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In addition, when the U.S. protects its allies from international scrutiny, again, other nations follow suit.
And so we return to the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. We have a choice between war and survival. We, and I mean especially Christians, can no longer solely rely on Augustine to form our beliefs about and use of wars. The world has changed significantly since Augustine's time. We currently have some tools that could help bring about the rule of law. We have the U.N., but it must be revised because it is currently constructed to have a limited voice by the world's superpowers. And we have the ICC. But if we want all nations to follow international law, the U.S. must lead by example and insist that its allies to the same.
The question is will mankind learn just in time, or will mankind learn after it's too late? For the Church to have something to contribute to the discussion, it cannot rely solely on its past for analyzing and responding to the world both now and in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 15
To R Scott Clark and his article that discusses attending what would be questionable events, such as a Mass at a Roman Church or a same-sex wedding, for the Christian. This appeared in Heidelblog.
One of the most important issues that was inadequately dealt with in the above article is that of communication. What are we communicating to all of the communities involved by our presence at a questionable event?
For example, I would occasionally teach a World Religions course where I taught at college. That means that I would have to teach students about other religions than my own. I did my best to have people from those religions check my lecture notes to ensure accuracy. But one thing I should have done to prepare was to visit the worship services of other religions. Would that be wrong?
And so if I was studying same-sex marriage from a Christian perspective, would it be wrong to attend such wedding services to get a better understanding of what same-sex marriage is about to the participants? Would it be wrong if I made it clear to those who organized the event that I was there just as an observer?
Now, is it possible for a Christian to attend a same-sex wedding for other reasons than to celebrate the union of those two people involved? It may not be to study same-sex marriage to better understand what means to those in such unions; it could be for other reasons that we can't think of right now.
I feel that there is just too much corporate and individual inner-direction that goes into the answers. There is too much emphasis on one's own purity and not enough emphasis on what a Christian could communicate to the communities involved, including one's own church community, to give a more complete answer to the question.
There is no doubt that we cannot celebrate such unions even though I think that it is imperative that we celebrate people's right to join in same-sex marriages in society. That means that we believe that people should have the right to make a choice that we don't want them to make. The same applies to people practicing other faiths. We can't celebrate them believing in false gods, but we should celebrate the freedom of worship in society.
A lot of it comes down to not judging fellow believers, those for whom Christ died, by appearances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 28
To T. David Gordon and his review of a book by N.T. Wright about Christianity in an age of Totalitarianism and Dysfunctional Democracies. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Below is my reaction to what is shared in the above article.
It appears that authoritarianism is conflated with autocracies in the above article. But there are other implementations of authoritarianism such as ethnocracies and classocracies. Unlike autocracies where authoritarianism is practiced by a few or even one leader, authoritarianism is exercised by groups in ethonocracies and classocracies. And because religion is an ethnicity, Christendom was and will always be a kind of ethnocracy.
We should also note that those autocracies that are driven by ideology often rationalized their dominance by claiming that they had an exclusive knowledge of what is best for human flourishing and the common good. And regardless of the will of the people, a given ideology was then forced on people by those autocracies and was rationalized by that autocracies claims about their ideology.
We should also note that because Christendom was an implementation of an ethnocracy, Christendom ran counter to rather than promoting the ideas of democracy. For if an ethnocracy is a form of group authoritarianism, then what is an integral part of authoritarianism is hierarchy. Opposite of that is the idea that equality is an inextricable part of democracy. And history shows how Christendom has resisted equality and, by being a form of authoritarianism, is diametrically opposed to democracy with equality.
Also, because of how conservative Christianity has rightfully emphasized the importance of the authority structures in a Christian's life, we religiously conservative Christians have a penchant for authoritarianism. And this is what we see today as many of us religiously conservative Christians. We see government as having a parental relationship with its people. And because we have a penchant for authoritarianism, we have great difficulty in recognizing where egalitarian relationships fit into society. And conservative Christianity's resistance to recognizing full equality to the LGBT community in society is an example of that great difficulty.
Unfortunately, conservative Christianity sees itself as a promoter of democracy. That is because of how so many of us religiously conservative Christians have reduced democracy to majority rule. In so doing, we have failed to heed the warning that Thomas Jefferson gave in his 1801 Inaugural Address:
'All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. '
Though Jefferson states that majority rule must be upheld, that the violation of the minority's equal rights is the majority's practice of oppressing the minority. And so the practice of that oppression means that any nation that does so is embracing authoritarianism with hierarchy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 3
To Joseph Pearce and his article on History and how it helps our understanding of people and who we are. In his article he compared how Marx understood people in comparison to some Roman Catholics whose books he referred to. This was posted on the Imaginative Conservative website.
Actually, the best Christian assessment of Marx comes from Martin Luther King Jr in his book, Stride Toward Freedom. Why Kings assessment of Marx is better than the one above is because King could see both the beauty and ugliness of of Marx and implies that with Catholic teaching, such as the books he was he referenced, we don't need to read Marx.
But history tells us that the Roman Church is not infallible in its teachings and practices, in fact far from it. And we would do well to listen to both Marx, those from the Roman Church, and others to learn about where we are today.
We should note what King said about Capitalism in comparison to Marx. That the materialism in Capitalism is as 'pernicious' as that of Marxism. But despite all of his faults and problems, Marx saw and said things that are worthwhile to consider. And one can see that if one does not reduce Marx to materialism. Marx was very concerned about justice, social relationships, and how the Capitalism of his day commodified Labor power and objectified the worker into an object for profit--profit for the owner that is.
Marx rightfully saw one solution which was to redistribute power to the workers. Marx's fatal flaw here was that he took an all-or-nothing approach to how he saw the groups of people in his day and in how he saw the need for the redistribution of power. That is why he so sharply distinguished the proletariat from the bourgeoisie as well as how he wanted to redistribute all power to the proletariat. BTW, if memory serves, the one who most promoted Marx's ideas as being scientific was Engels.
No comments:
Post a Comment