Around Aug 22
To Chris Gordon and his article about his Reformed Catechism on Human Sexuality and its claims that statistically, there are not enough babies born as being intersex to merit a 3rd category for biological sex. This article appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio Blog.
Regarding those who are born indeterminate. About 1 in 1,000 babies are born intersex each year (see https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20190503/study-about-1-in-1000-babies-born-intersex ). [Editor's note: other sources found later state that it is up to 1 out of every 2,000 babies who are born intersex. But that change in number does change the point being made]
About 1 in 5,000 male babies are born with Hemophilia A (see https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/hemophilia/data.html ).
There are approximately 5,000 new cases of ALS per year. That is more than the number of babies who are born intersex each year but the numbers are somewhat comparable.
By the logic expressed above, either we don't need to categorize the diseases mentioned above or we need to include intersex as a biological sex. It is not unbiblical to count a third biological sex because we know that nature has fallen as a result of Adam's sin. And thus we know that the presence of a 3rd biological sex does not challenge what God's Word says about God's original design.
But to those who are born intersex, not counting that as a classification can feel like a partial denial of their existence. Having talked with some who are intersex, to partially deny their existence because they are not statistically significant is an affront to decency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 24
To Bradley G. Green and the part of his article that is quoted in a blogpost posted on Heidelblog. His article was about Critical Theory and Christianity.
Bradley G. Green's full article can be found at
https://americanreformer.org/2022/07/critical-theory-and-the-gospel/
It is understandable why some religiously conservative Christian leaders are so opposed to Critical Theory. It is because Critical Theory has gored some of their oxen. In particular, Critical Theory has fallibly but effectively been criticizing some of the fruits of Christendom in the world.
But more than that, like they see social sciences, some religiously conservative Christian leaders see Critical Theory as trespassing on their turf of telling people how to understand the world. So much of the attacks on Critical Theory by these Christian leaders show that they feel threatened by the likes of Critical Theory. Their fear is that members of their flock might incorporate some of what Critical Theory says about the world into their beliefs.
The basic problem with much of the Christian criticism of Critical Theory is that it is based on the assumption that Christian Theology and Critical Theory operates in all of the same spheres. And thus much of the religiously conservative Christian criticism of Critical Theory seeks to first spiritualize what Critical Theory is saying about society and the world in order to discredit it. Green, in his full article gives an outline of part of his criticism of Critical Theory. That outline consists of the following subjects: creation, sin, salvation, and eschatology. But when religiously conservative critics use such categories as a framework for their critique of Critical Theory, they imply that society and the world must revolve around Christianity like it use to during Christendom. The problem is that society and the world consists of unbelievers and believers who live in democracies. And to assume or believe that society and the world must revolve around Christianity is to imply that the Church must have at least a paternalistic relationship with society and the world.
The religiously conservative Christian view that society must revolve around Christianity points to religiously conservative Christianity's penchant for authoritarianism. Ironically enough, Critical Theorists have addressed addressed that in their finding on the authoritarian personality types.
Basically, the critique of Critical Theory in the article quoted from above follows the same approach that religiously conservative Christians use on all other disciplines, secular ideologies, and secular theories which they see as infringing on their turf to be the sole interpreters of the world around us. That critique says that the only valuable insights and points that these disciplines, ideologies, and theories can provide have already been expressed in Christian Theology. And so why bother paying attention to them. Thus, what these religiously conservative Christians are saying to their audiences that they have everything to teach the world and nothing to learn from it. Ironically, such an approach to the world is counterproductive in our carrying out of the Great Commission. That is because the world will see our attempts to control it before it hears our sharing of the Gospel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 25
To Alexander Salter and his article that states that American Democracy should be defended. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
The question posed by the title of the article begs the question that America has or has had a democracy. If we look at what makes up a democracy, the answer may not be to the liking of those who live privileged lives.
Certainly universal citizenship and voting are necessary ingredients to democracy. But a quote from Jefferson's 1801 inaugural address also adds an essential ingredient to that list see https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau1.asp ):
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. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind.
During what time period of American history have we had equality for all minorities in our nation? If we are honest, we have to answer by saying that there has never been a time period in which America has not had at least some in the minority who have not been oppressed. Even today, we still have systemic racism. But it isn't just racism that plagues us. Many of the wealthy have experienced privileged treatment from the government and that has often occurred at the expense to those in the lower economic classes.
Like Gandhi's response to the question of what he thought of Western Civilization, when we are asked about what we think of American Democracy, our answer should be the same: 'I think it would be a good idea.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 27
To Heidelblog and its post that quoted George Orwell's comment about the suppression of unpopular opinions.
Should all unpopular views have the right to be expressed or do we need to determine which ones can be expressed on a case by case basis? What about those views that express falsehoods that cause people to unnecessarily put themselves in harm's way? Or what about those views that use falsehoods to promote the oppression of others? Or what about denying the Holocaust in countries like Germany?
BTW, there is a bit of irony in the above post since Clark does not post all legitimate responses to the blogposts on this blog. Notice how Clark explicitly states that comments that 'irritate the management' of this blog will be deleted. The management does have the right to block or delete any comments. But to do so while posting articles and quotes that complain about the silencing of what are unpopular views to society is inconsistent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 27
To Joseph Pearce and his article that tries to distinguish good nationalism from bad nationalism. This article appeared on the Imaginative Conservative website.
I approach the subject of nationalism in a different way with some similarities. There is a good nationalism: nationalism that means self-rule. When the British ruled India, Gandhi and other promoted that kind of nationalism. That those from India should be able to exercise self-rule.
There is also the kind of nationalism that can become an example of tribalism. A post Cold War definition of tribalism says that it consists of a high degree of loyalty. That loyal can be to an ideology, ethnicity (here, ethnicity can include race, descent, language, national origin, and religion), economic class, or whatever else groups can unite around. The trouble with tribalism is that the higher degree of loyalty one has to the group, and in this case to one's nation, the more one embraces a kind of moral relativity that says what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom.
For an example, we should consider what George H. W. Bush said after an Iranian airliner was shot down by a U.S. naval warship (see https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2018/12/01/1888454/george-hw-bush-after-shootdown-of-iranian-airliner-by-us-navy-i-never-apologize-for-us ):
'I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy”'
See, loyalty to a nation can be good but only if it is held in check. For the greater the loyalty one has to a group, the nation in this case, the more one is disabled from objectively looking at one's own group. The more loyal one is, the harder it is for one to see the wrong that one's group has done.
Consider also what was called Obama's 'Apology Tour.' Obama, while overseas, denounced some of what America had done in the past. This enraged conservatives because they viewed any such admission of America wrongdoing was betrayal.
By seeing nationalism as a form of tribalism, not only do we see more of nationalism's true dangers, we can get a better idea of why nationalism can go wrong. It goes wrong when there is too much loyalty. And the more personal significance we gain from associating with a group, one's nation in this case, the more loyal one becomes to that group.
As for patriotism, I view it as a religion. I view patriotism as the opiate for nationalism.
