Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 16, 2023

 August 11

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the video interview in which Trueman talked about technology. I commented on most of the video on the YouTube channel but not on what he reported was why people chose Clinton or Trump in the 2016 Presidential election.

Youtube interview with Trueman:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86pmrLxW5BU&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fheidelblog.net%2F&feature=emb_imp_woyt

I provided a response to most of Trueman's interview. But his comments on Trump vs Clinton were unwarranted. It wasn't technology that explained the voting for the 2016 election.  Rather, it was the various scope of concerns people had. Those who prefer more homogeneous communities have a more myopic scope and preferred Trump. Those who prefer heterogeneous communities have a wider worldview that keeps them from being so preoccupied with what is happening to them, preferred Clinton. But many of them prefer Clinton not necessarily because of what Clinton offered. Rather, it was because of the threats that Trump brought. And the current state of our nation is largely due to the realization of those threats.

In one of his comedy shows, Lewis Black reported on a news story  that said that 13% of the people polled preferred to have a giant asteroid hit the earth and destroy civilization as we know than to have either Clinton or Trump in the White House. I think I see their point.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 12

To Heidelblog and Nicholas Batzig for the portion of his article that was quoted in a Heidelblog post. His article was about Christians seeking greatness.

Nicholas Batzig's full article can be found at:

https://churchleaders.com/outreach-missions/outreach-missions-articles/391112-the-path-to-true-greatness.html

Not all employers of trendy phrases are self-motivated are merely trying to score points with their audiences. But for those who are, or should I say for those of us who are since, as James said, we all stumble in many ways, it is part of the territory of being human. As for power, some seek it honestly want to use it for good. Others are more self-motivated, In fact, being self-motivated is a problem all of us Christians have to face about ourselves and struggle with.

I think that even the smallest desire for greatness, whether it is achieved by the selfishly motivated or the spiritually pure is problematic. For in striving for it, either by self-promotion or sincere service to others, causes the process of facing our own sinfulness to result into a conflict of interest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Bradley Birzer and his article on how Jackson believed that both whites and Native Americans were equals and that white Americans had a greater claim to the Native American land that Native Americans had. This was posted in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

We white Americans, especially conservatives, have an inordinate need for affirmation, approval, and perhaps even adoration from ourselves and others for our principles and values. But all too often, when our own words are betrayed by actions, we rely solely on our words to define us. We do not offer the same courtesy to all others.

And so President Jackson believed that whites and Native Americans were equals? Did he also believe that Native Americans had the same claim to their land which Americans had their own? Did he believe that Native Americans share the land with white Americans? And yet, according to Birzer, Jackson believed that whites and Native Americans were equals. Doesn't that sound somewhat familiar to the oldie but goodie, 'separate but equal'?

Should we mention that, at that time, American citizenship was only available to free whites? At least that is what the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 stipulated. And that remained in effect until the passing of the 14th Amendment. But that Amendment only offered citizenship to Blacks while equality was still not even on the horizon.

Women were not granted the right to become independent American citizens until the early 1920s while Native Americans could not become American citizens until 1924.

Meanwhile for us fine, upstanding religiously conservative white Christians, how we want to be perceived by both ourselves and others often conflicts with our history--both personal and corporate--national in this case-- histories.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 14

To Heidelblog and Stella Morabito for the portion of her article that was quoted in a Heidelblog post. Her article was about whether the Federal Government should step in to help people with loneliness.

Stella Morabito's full article can be found at:

    https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/28/beware-of-bureaucrats-wanting-to-be-your-bff/

The article cited is simply a rebellious reaction to somewhat needed government intervention by someone believes that small government is ALWAYS the solution. And what that belief in small government implies is that the small government approach is omniscient. 

And so the article employs hyperbole to represent past and present government actions while ignoring the past about Covid. That past about Covid included necessary lockdowns to battle a pandemic than overwhelmed health resources in b0th European and American cities.

The 'Bah Humbug' mentality that the Trump Administration expressed to the pandemic left the nation in shambles and enabled America to be one of the leading nations in death rates from Covid (see  https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n439  ). One has to wonder about the sincerity of religiously conservative Christians when they tell those who are woke to submit to the government because those in the government are ordained by God while they struggled with a simple lockdown meant to curb a dangerous pandemic. One could also ask if the conservative selectivity in terms of when who should submit to the government is part of a larger game. For example, the Senate Intelligence Committee had released a report on Russian meddling in the U.S. Part of that report stated the following (see https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-committee-releases-bipartisan-report-russia’s-use-social-media#:~:text=Statement%20from%20Chairman%20Burr%3A&text=By%20flooding%20social%20media%20with,institutions%20and%20our%20fellow%20Americans. ):

'By flooding social media with false reports, conspiracy theories, and trolls, and by exploiting existing divisions, Russia is trying to breed distrust of our democratic institutions and our fellow Americans.'

Why would religious conservative participate in such a venture. It might be because before the invasion of Ukraine, a significant number of religiously conservative Christians saw the relationship between the Church and State in Russia as model for America. For example, Franklin Graham had been praising Russia's measures against the LGBT community.

Of course the above is hopefully a more  imaginative explanation for why conservatives, especially religiously conservative Christians, have been reacting to the past Covid lockdown and current government actions the way they have been.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 22, 2023

 Feb 20

To Heidelblog and Bruce Waltke on the part of Waltke's article in a book that compares Dispensationalism and Covenant theologies by William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey. Waltke's criticism of Dispensationalism stated that Dispensationalism does not follow the Reformed Theology practice of using Scriptures that are written clearly to interpret those Scriptures that are not written clearly.

I very much appreciate this post. I've been saying something similar to what Waltke said. Dispensational Eschatology takes a literal interpretation of the Old Testament to control how the New Testament should be interpreted rather than the other way around. My way of saying it does not adequately handle what is figuratively said in Revelation, but when one takes Genesis 17:7's reference as the sign of circumcision being forever, then one must conclude that those in the circumcision party were right and what Paul wrote in Galatians was wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 21

To Bradley Birzer and the claim made in his article that says Christianity was the first to practice full equality. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

True equality cannot be measured in a homogeneous voluntary group within a given society. That is like measuring someone's love by looking at how they love only those who love them. The real test for a group's regard for equality is found in how they treat those from other groups. And for a long time, that is not where Christians shine or do well. 

When this country  has been regarded as being Christian, discrimination abounded even within the Church between members of different denominations. Women and non-whites in society have been discriminated against from the beginning of the founding of America. If we trace that far back enough, would at least some of that discrimination                    be traced back to the early Church.

It's not that the Scriptures don't teach about equality. It is that it is difficult to historically or logically support the claim about Christianity and  equality made in the above article.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 8, 2023

 Feb 1

To R. Scott Clark and his article on the importance of studying Church History. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

There are several things to agree with here. First, the Christian Faith is a historical faith. Also, there are many lessons to learn from Church History. Third, it is important to learn from multiple cultures and Church History is influenced by multiple cultures as listed by Clark.

But what is overstated is the significance of the exposure to those multiple cultures listed above. The first problem is that is that the regions of the world from which much of Church History comes excludes most of the world. The second problem is that a major cultural influence during the times in which Church History is studied is religious rather than regional. Third, the different cultures which are studied in Church history have little to nothing in common with today's cultures of the same regions in the world. Finally, the Greco-Roman world had, because of their empires,  a wide area of influence outside of their physical boundaries. This problem is similar to the  2nd problem previously mentioned.

What should be studied from Christian History  are both the Church's accomplishments and its failures and sins. We should also note the different contexts that exist between today's world and the worlds of both the patristic and medieval periods.

The approach of studying both the accomplishments and failures seen in what the Church did should also be applied to what the Church has said. The failure to recognize the errors in even our favorite confessions and catechisms has the potential of making those confessions and catechisms a canon above the canon of the Scriptures. By that I mean that we eventually will be unable to see and accept in the Scriptures anything outside of what our favorite past and present confessions and catechisms have reported.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is an exception to the comments in this series. Whereas the comments listed in this series are blocked on conservative blogs, the comment below was not posted on a theological liberal blog.

Around Jan 28

To Jeff Hood and his article on Theosemantics. In that article, Hood argues against the idea that the words of men could adequately describe God because then God would be limited by those words. His article was posted on Jeff Hood's blog on Patheos.

There is a difference between limiting God by our words from limiting our understanding of God by our own minds. And there is a difference between people using words to describe who we think God is from God using words to reveal Himself to us. Those two differences go hand in hand.

The belief that God's Word is inerrant first belongs to the original autographs of the Scriptures. The concept is found in what Jesus said about every jot and title from the Old Testament to what Paul wrote that the Scriptures are God-breathed. The deemphasis on words, and especially the concepts the communicate, is found in the teaching that it is people who are the ultimate authors of the Scriptures thus making every religion derived from the Scriptures a missing link in the evolutionary process of discovering God.

When people are credited as being the ultimate authors of the Scriptures, the words there can only be seen as providing limits for who God is. When God is credited with being the ultimate author of the Scriptures, then the limits allow us a sufficient understanding of who God is while our inability to fully grasp who God is not a reflection on God, but on us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 3

To Heidelblog and Michael Kruger for the portion of Kruger's article that tries to discredit the accusation that today'today's religiously conservative American Christians are haters.

Michael Kruger's full article can be found at:

    https://www.michaeljkruger.com/when-were-christians-first-regarded-as-intolerant-haters/

The one factor that the above citation from the article by Michael Kruger, as well as his full article, miss is current evidence. The above deductions from the Scriptures and the experiences of Christians in the Roman Empire which dismiss charges that today's Christians are haters. Kruger's article does not examine today's evidence. And that, in a nutshell, shows the problem that many religious conservative Christians have in relating to people in this "Post Christian" America and West.

Because we rely so heavily on using deduction and, in this case, the experiences of the earliest Christians, we refuse to read or listen to unbelievers as they attempt to tells us about their experiences and how we come across. And yet, we demand that they pay attention to what we say. Perhaps this kind of interaction we have with the world shows a deficit on our part. And my guess, based on how we expect unbelievers to respond to us, is that authoritarianism has corrupted how we interpret the Scriptures and how to interact with the world.

So we need to contemplate at least some of the evidence that supports charges that today's Christians are haters. For example, many of today's religiously conservative Christians, especially our leaders and influencers, want those in the LGBT community to be marginalized by today's society. Many of us strongly opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage lest both our "freedoms" were infringed on and that society would view sexual orientations like homosexuality and gender identities that differed from one's biological sex be viewed as normal. In fact, many of our religiously conservative Christian leaders and influencers told us that God would judge us for  accepting homosexuality and transgenderism. Such a message would setup those from the LGBT community to be scapegoats should any hardship that is interpreted as God's judgment inflict us. In fact, such a message was preached by the likes of Jerry Falwell and other after 9/11.

Or consider how many of usreligiously conservative American Christians deny the existence of current systemic racism in society because such an admission would require that we admit faults and look to change the old status quo.

Or consider how many religious conservative American Christians resisted the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s and eagerly accused that movement as being communistic. Look at how many religiously conservative American Christians supported Jim Crow and/or slavery because they believed in white supremacy.  Or look at how many religiously conservative American Christians supported, and some of them still do, 2nd class citizenship for women in society. Or what about those religiously conservative American Christians who joined less religiously conservative American Christians and unbelievers in supporting the ethnic cleansing of American Native Americans from the land. 

Back to the present, look at how many religiously conservative American Christians are highly suspicious of Muslims including Muslim Americans. Look at how many religiously conservative American Christians, who in the name of patriotism, supported horrific foreign policies and interventions that killed or displaced thousands, if not millions, of citizens in countries like Iraq and Vietnam. Look at how many religiously conservative American Christians supported or turned a blind eye to American policies that replaced democratically elected leaders in other nations with brutal dictators in the name of anti-Communism. Or where is the love from religiously conservative American Christians for the Palestinians?

See, whether we religiously conservative American Christians are haters or not is first determined by evidence, not deductions made because of what the Scriptures say or what the first Christians experienced. So far, this comment just deals with today's American Christians. Just think of what could be said about European Christians of yesteryear who supported imperialism and colonialism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Bradley Birzer and his article on slavery and the founding of the U.S. He focuses on the debate that occurred during the Constitutional Convention that preceded the writing of The Constitution. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I am confused by the claim made by Birzer about the decline in slavery from the 1760s to the 1790s. I am confused because census data cited in a NCBI article showed just the opposite (see   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716878/ ). The slave population increased in each decade from the 1760s through the 1790s. If we follow slavery from the years 1808 to 1860, the number of slaves quadrupled (see   https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery  ). That figure is confirmed in the source previously cited.

But while conservatives like to focus attention on slavery, perhaps because it was hotly debated in the nation and  was eliminated by the Civil War, a major driving factor in enabling and promoting the use of slaves is ignored. That is the belief in white supremacy, which survived the demise of slavery. We should note that Birzer does not mention white supremacy in his article. The belief in white supremacy enabled and promoted the Jim Crow era. And the belief in white supremacy enables and promotes the continued existence of systemic racism in our nation.

During the time leading up to the Civil War, even being an abolitionist did not preclude one from believing in white supremacy. Many black abolitionists in the North learned that from their personal experiences with white abolitionists (see  https://academic.oup.com/nyu-press-scholarship-online/book/21785/chapter-abstract/181766563?redirectedFrom=fulltext ).

America's racial problems cannot be reduced the past existence of the institution of race-based slavery. Rather, what  allowed and promoted slavery, the belief in white supremacy, deserves more attention than it will get if we simply focus on slavery. After all, the belief in white supremacy also enabled policies that caused the ethnic cleansing of Native Americas from the land.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blog For January 4, 2023

 Dec 15

To Heidelblog and Anthony Esolen regarding Esolen's article and the part of that article that was quoted in Heidelblog on the alleged effects of the Obergefell decision on the attitudes and behaviors of our young people regarding sexual orientation and transgenderism.

Anthony Esolen's full article can be found at:

    https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2022/11/26/the-trainwreck-of-white-collar-sympathy/

So according to the logic employed by Anthony Esolen, we should reverse the Establishment Clause from the First Amendment because that would normalize Islam, Hinduism, and other religions including Satanism. That is if we are to employ Esolen's logic.

At the same time, what isn't covered by his article is the abuse that the LGBT community has had to endure because being seen as unnatural or perverted has given the government and society permission to marginalize that community for centuries. But we who are normal or who are considered to be natural in our affection don't know anything aboutthe effects of that marginalization. And  because we haven't lived through and with the effects of marginalization, the experiences of those who have been marginalized are nothing more than abstract concepts and so  those effects are not meaningful for us.

And when in nature, around 1,500 species exhibit same-sex behavior (SSB), why are we so insistent on using the law to impose our religious views on unbelievers?

Finally, at the same time, Esolen does not account for the effects of being marginalized. Effects like being clinically depressed, becoming suicidal, or being persecuted, beaten, or murdered for being perceived as a threat to society because one is unnatural. And so he looks to scapegoat the Obergefell decision for a host of effects on kids. Yes, there are some reactions in transgenderism and the support for it that have gone too far. But such is natural when a long-standing social injustice is being addressed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 22

To Heidelblog and Todd Pruitt for the part of Pruitt's article that expressed agreement with the Nashville Statement on human sexuality.

Todd Pruitt's full article:

    https://cbmw.org/2022/11/16/why-i-changed-my-mind-on-the-nashville-statement/

The Nashville Statement:

    https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement

I struggle with a couple of articles that are in the Nashville Statement. I struggle with some of them because they are made as absolute statements regardless of context. 

For example, does Article 10 imply that Christians cannot support a person's legal right to engage in same-sex marriage or transgenderism in society? We certainly cannot support same-sex marriage or transgenderism in the Church. And our evangelism must call on those who would engage in homosexual immorality or transgenderism to repent. But if we support a person's legal right to practice religious faiths other than the Christian faith, why can't we support a person's legal right to be joined in a same-sex marriage or to seek a change in gender?

Likewise, the validity of Article 7 depends on the context in which it is used. When speaking about our new life in Christ, certainly identifying as a homosexual is at odds with that new life. However, if our new life in Christ becomes our only identity, then we can no longer identify with the tax collector from the parable of the two men praying. Can we only identify with that tax collector once, or can those who struggle with SSA identify as being homosexual as their own personal way of saying that they are like the tax collector from that parable who is in need of God's mercy in contrast with the Pharisee who not only sees no need to beg for mercy. And that Pharisee also thanks God that he is not a sinner like the tax collector. The same principle applies to Article 13 as it pertains to gender dysphoria.

We should note that in Article 12, our sinful desires must be put to death on a daily basis. Also we should note that, as James 2 says, we stumble in many ways. And we simply don't know enough about what causes SSA or gender dysphoria, in addition that many of us struggle with having sinful heterosexual desires, to say that for each Christian who is SSA that their battle in resisting  SSA is a past battle that they have won.

The Nashville State has good points to make, but it is not inerrant. And requiring too strict an adherence to it could cause some of us to hurt or even sabotage the efforts of fellow believers who are struggling with internal battles that we can't relate to even though we have our own battles to deal with.

Finally, when we reduce the new moral revolution to sexual issues, it reveals part of who we are to the world. The new moral revolution has several concerns, many of them involve social justice issues. The protests after the murder of George Floyd illustrated that. The concern about climate change and the ongoing battle to secure full equality for those in the LGBT community are concerns of the new moral revolution as well. Certainly, we as Christians should lament over the increased promiscuity and the other forms of sexual immorality that we see around us. But there are other moral issues that are just as important, if not more so, with which society is dealing. And while society has been making positive advances in working to resolve some moral issues, there are some losing battles with other moral issues.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 3

To Heidelblog and Kaylee White for the part of White's article quoted by Heidelblog. Her article claims that current government is trying to hide its disdain for religious Americans.

Kaylee White's full article can be found at:

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/303-creative-colorado-tries-to-hide-disdain-for-religious-americans

The reasoning in the question referred to in the excerpt above is neither radical nor new. It is the same reasoning applied to restore equality to previously marginalized groups. That because of past or current marginalization, some groups are protected while other groups are not. And who is objecting to such reasoning? Could it be those who wish to continue the old status quo? Could it be those who wish to move the LGBT community back to the margins of society?

Besides, it isn't speech that is being targeted here. Rather, it is access to the free market that is the issue. The issue here is about stopping  part of what was happened during Jim Crow from being exercised against LGBT community. To say the focus is free speech is misleading.

From the beginning, the legalization of same-sex marriage has been challenged by religiously conservative Christian leaders and influencers because these Christians claimed that such legalization would infringe on the freedoms of Christians. In reality, it has never been our freedoms that has been our concern. Instead, it was the fear that our ability to promote the marginalization of the LGBT community in society would be infringed on. And what we seem to struggle with recognizing is that the more we insist on marginalizing the LGBT community in society, the more we confirm what Critical Theory and Post Modernism make of religion in general and thus of Christianity in particular. And that unnecessarily harms the reputation of the Gospel.

In addition, the kind of complaint lodged in White's article forgets the historical context of designating the LGBT community as a group in need of protection. For none of what us Christians suffering from in the efforts to protect the LGBT community compares with the suffering that many of us or our ancestors have imposed on the LGBT community for centuries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Bradley Birzer and his article that attempts to define conservatism in a way that makes it the ultimate ism or approach to thinking and living. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The above article is just another attempt to make conservatism all that its followers want it to be. And so Birzer is starting to make conservatism into a naturalistic religion by which its followers can claim to be exceptional to those who are not conservatives. According To Birzer, conservatism is the ultimate ideal. But because of that, conservatism deals with the immanence-transcendence that we also attribute to God. And that is part of what makes conservatism a religion.

Another part of what makes conservatism a naturalistic religion is that it has a monopoly on truth where truth can be found. And that, according to Birzer, distinguishes it from liberalism, socialism, and corporatism. According to Birzer, it seems that we have everything to learn from conservatism and nothing to learn from any other isms. Besides making its followers arrogant, that would make conservatism the sole proprietor of truth and that causes theological problems for those religious faiths that are based on revelation. That is because being the sole proprietor would make conservatism the judge of all revelation. 

But there is also a problem according to Birzer. That is t how can we conserve what we did not practice? Note how Birzer states that 'true conservatism' is rarely understood or practiced. And if one neither understands nor practices conservatism, how can one judge the other isms?

There is one other characteristic that makes conservatism into a naturalistic religion. That characteristic is the forever attempt to define conservatism in a way that makes it the be all and end all of how to live and think. That forever attempt to make conservatism omniscient also contributes to making conservatism a naturalistic religion.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 20, 2022

July 1

To R. Scott Clark and his article on sex in the Post-Christian era. This article was posted in Heidelblog.

What starts as a mischaracterization about how others, unbelievers that is, view sex ends as an appeal to a Christian's ego. And with the appeal to the Christian's ego comes an invitation to be like the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying. But in the end, Clark, like many religiously conservative Reformed theologians and thinkers, believe that they can define things in and out of existence without reviewing evidence or listening to others.

 First, SCOTUS didn't steal the abortion issue from the legislative bodies. Such a view is not a pro-life view where the humanity of the unborn is relative to one's location. SCOTUS's job is to determine when actions taken against or laws enforced on people violate their Constitutional rights. And the part that SCOTUS got right in the Roe v. Wade case is that the woman has the right to privacy and control over her body. What SCOTUS got wrong was its determination about the human life status of the unborn. That is because, in the end, the abortion issue is about navigating the conflicting rights of the unborn child and those of the mother. For if  the unborn child is not a human life, then the debate ends and abortion is only about the right to privacy and the rights a woman has over her own body. But if the unborn child is a human life, then we need to navigate those conflicting rights of the mother and the unborn with the understanding that all humans are created equal.

The Dobbs decision made the Roe v. Wade decision into collateral damage by denying the Constitutional right to privacy. And in so doing, other court cases regarding sexual relations, contraceptives, and  same-sex marriages become possible targets. 

While Clark calls same-sex marriage an oxymoron because he deduces that there is only one way of having sex and thus there is no other way produces a physical union between two people, one only needs to ask whether an unmarried couple had sex if they engaged in oral or anal intercourse? And if the answer is 'no,' then couples who are not married or couples where at least one of the parties is married to someone else  have not engaged in premarital or extramarital sex if they practice those kinds of sex acts.

Next, we have to ask whether pregnancy should just be viewed as being the consequences of having sex making abortion wrong because it is something one does to escape the consequences. That is because if trying to escape the consequence of sex is wrong when it pertains to pregnancy, then is using contraceptives wrong? Is not having a large family wrong? Is deciding not to have children wrong? I am asking these questions as they pertain to married Christian couples.

And, btw, sex is a means of self-fulfillment. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem becomes when sex is only about self-fulfillment. And speaking of Narcissism, telling Christians to shine is a narcissistic appeal.

Finally, why do many people expect 17-year-olds to have already engaged in sex? I can think of two reasons. First, sex is an incredibly strong desire that can greatly control our thoughts, feelings, and actions. And that is true for all of us, believer and unbeliever alike. What should be different for the Christian is the, hopefully, increasing ability to wait in faith that God will provide the right relationship in which sex can be engaged in at the right time. Second, we live in a consumer society where one's significance is largely determined by what we consume and how. Therefore, there is a personal significance to be gained by having sex in such a culture. Those two driving forces have unfortunately made sex a very powerful draw for not only high school kids, but middle school kids as well and for those of us who are of post-high school age.

What do Christians exhibit to the world when we control our sexual urges better than unbeliever do? In the imperfect ways in which we exercise such control, we show a gratitude for what God has already done for us as well as the hope we have that what God will provide is worth more than what we can grab for ourselves now. But we also need to tell the world that our self-control, regardless of how it looks to others, is not perfect. That we struggle with and are vulnerable to the same sins that unbelievers face. The difference between the believer and the unbeliever regarding sex is then that we do, to varying levels, exercise a control that they may not be exercising out of gratitude for the past and a hope that unbelievers cannot have until they believe. And the level of self-control we do exercise is the result of God's mercy and grace. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 10

To Heidelblog and Eric Watkins for Heidelblog's partial citing of Watkins's article on Christianity and CRT where Watkins seems to say that the two do not mix. This partial citation can be found in the Heidelblog.

Eric Watkins's full article can be found at

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/christianity-or-critical-theory

The problem with the article cited is a problem common with how many Reformed theologians approach today's ideologies and issues. The problem is that many Reformed theologians approach to today's issues and ideologies believing that they can define problems and ideologies out of existence regardless of what can be observed. And the general mindset of Watkins's approach to Critical Theory can be see in the following quote from his article:

However, the world’s ways of addressing the realities of sin never work; they only tend to compound problems and create division. 

That was said near the beginning of the article and thus since Critical Theory is one of the ways that the world is addressing the realities of sin, Critical Theory has been pronounced guilty from the beginning even before Watkins started to study it.

In addition, the basic tenor of Watkins's approach to Critical Theory or any other theory that comes from secular sources can be illustrated by a Martin Luther King description of the West in his speech that opposed the Vietnam War (see https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm) :

The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

If we substitute a fill-in-the-blank for the word 'Western,' then what Watkins's above quote about the world's approach to problem seems to suggest is that we could substitute the word 'Christianity' for the word 'Western' and we will find the same problem. Thus, Watkins seems to believe that Christianity alone has the cure for the world's problem and thus the world should come running to us for solutions to its problems while we Christians have no need to listen to the world.

And, btw, speaking of Martin Luther King Jr., Watkins, like many conservatives including the ideologues in the Reagan Administration, seem to reduce what King said about racism to his 'colorblind' approach in his <I>I Have A Dream</I> speech.  But if we were to continue to listen to or read what King said after that speech, we would be surprised to see how much of what he promoted is being continued in  Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory.

For example, in King's interview with Xander Vanocur conducted 11 months before he died (see  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xsbt3a7K-8), King stated that we have the triplets of evil which are inextricably tied together of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism. By calling those evils triplets that are 'inextricably' tied together, King was saying that we can't get rid of one of those evils without getting rid of the other 2.  In addition, in that same interview, what King said about his then present work for a real equality is well in line with Kimberlé Crenshaw's promotion of equality of outcomes, which she placed in sharp contrast to the Reagan Administration's "colorblind" approach to being satisfied with just the equality of process. Along with Watkins's claim that King distanced himself from 'violent instigations of Marxism,' Watkins shows a great selectivity in what he cites from King. For King not only sharply criticized Marxism, he also sharply criticized Capitalism. Also, King recognized valid points made by Marx, he did the same for Capitalism.

Much more could be said but there are two problems with Watkins's seeming suggestion that Christianity alone has the solution to the world's problems. First, Church History provides no support for  such a suggestion. The religious wars in Europe and the religious strife in early America are evidence that flies in the face of such a suggestion along with the many times that the Church has sided with wealth and power over against the oppressed.

Second, one of the New Testament's concerns was for how the Church was to remain faithful in a secular society. It did not speak to how to create a just society. And much in the Old Testament concerned itself with maintaining a religiously homogeneous society rather than religiously heterogeneous ones. Thus for Watkins to  tell the world that Christianity alone has the solutions to its problems while also suggesting Christianity has no need to listen to the world is supported by neither the Scriptures nor history. Stating that doesn't mean that we can't use the Scriptures to address the world's problems. It just means that we are not the only source for solutions to the world's problems and thus we need to listen as much as we want to share. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 13

To Heidelblog and C.S. Lewis and the quote from Lewis on how crime and punishment should be about justice and punishing the criminal according to what they deserve. This appeared in Heidelblog.

How do we know what the criminal deserves, in terms of justice, unless we consider the context of their crime? And how willing will we be to give the criminal what they fully deserve when we realize that God does not treat us, those who visibly keep the law, treat us in the same way? 

The context of a crime alone should tell us that the responsibility for the crime does not just rest on the individual perpetrator, but on one's family and the society in which everyone lives. The responsibility for  the crime is not an exclusive-or proposition; it is a proposition that employs conjunction. That is imprisonment should consist of both efforts to heal as well as linking justice to punishment. But the degree to which we invoke punishment with justice must be mitigated by our own need for mercy.

So when we combine these notions, perhaps Lewis's approach is not all that humanitarian either. And our reliance solely on a past source to talk about crime and punishment only shows that traditionalism includes the tyrannical rule of the past over the present.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 14

To Marcia Chrsitoff Reina and her reposted article that extols the notion of the creation of an aristocratic democracy and claims that it was the intention of our nation's Founders. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

What Reina seems to miss in describing the intentions of the Founders is the historical context of both the writing of The Constitution and their view of democracy.

Zinn points out that though what the Founders wanted was more democratic than what existed in the political systems of other nations,  it was far from a real democracy. Why were they against an egalitarian democracy? The answer could be found in the historical context of The Constitution and the political ideas that those Founders were battling.

The writing of The Constitution was a result of widespread dissent and events like Shays Rebellion. What was happening was that the common  folk, especially veterans, were seeing promises  broken and were losing what land they had to taxes.  Thus, the Founders gathered in Philadelphia to form a new government in which they hoped to remain in charge.

In addition, their condemnation of 'egalitarianism' was not an opposition to egalitarianism per se, but it was  a response to proposals made that were being accepted by many common people. Included in those proposals was the elimination of debts and the reliance on paper money. So the Founders, many of them being the new elites of the nation by virtue of their positions in life, such as being bondholders and slaveowners, gathered to form a stronger federal government that would protect them from the  demands made by common people. We should note here that according to Yates's notes on the Constitutional debates, Madison adamantly opposed giving the lower classes the right to vote in  England. He feared that such would threaten the position enjoyed by wealthy elites there. 

And thus, the came authorization of the creation of the militias  and they were put under the authority of the President. Before the ratification of The Constitution, the government could not forcefully respond to uprisings.

And thus, with the writing of The Constitution, the Founders became to American democracy what the Bolsheviks of Lenin's day were to Russian Socialists: 'Opportunistic Vanguards,' which is a term Chomsky has used to describe Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

Of course, a religiously conservative Catholic, blog is going to post the above article because us religiously conservative Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, have a penchant for passionately embracing authoritarianism. We should note that the term 'aristocractic democracy,' like the term 'ethnic democracy,' is an oxymoron because democracy is about sharing power rather than trying to hoard it. Unfortunately for what is left of our democracy, there is a forever king-of-the-hill battle for that power and a place of supremacy because there are competing groups that believe they are entitled to have that place of supremacy in our nation. And here, we should note the trend in more modern Church history. That trend is that the predominant branch of the Church sides with wealth and power aver and against the rights and needs of the oppressed. That occurred with the Roman Church's siding with wealth and power in the pre-revolutionary times of France and Spain. And it occurred with the Orthodox Church and its support of the Tsar as well as its current support of Putin. And it is occurring here in the US with Evangelicals, sometimes joined by conservative Catholics, as they offer almost blind support for the Republican Party.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 15

To Bradley Birzer and his article on what the Constitutional Convention, what some call the Federal Debates as recorded by Madison's notes, said about slavery. This article appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.

It appears that Birzer didn't adequately represent what was said in the Federal Debates about slavery according to Madison's notes. Whereas Birzer reported that the convention debated slavery from August 8th to August 13th, there is no use of the word 'slave' or any word built on that root in the debates from August 9th to August 13th. It was only on August 8th, of the  dates mentioned by Birzer, in which slavery was mentioned. And part of the mentioning of  slavery in the Federal Debates on other dates had to do not with the immorality nature of slavery itself, but with whether to include slaves in determining the number of representatives a state has in Congress.

Were there those, like King and Morris, who opposed slavery? Yes. But did the level of debate indicate that slavery was almost put an end to during those debates? The number of days in which slavery was mentioned as an institution that must be eliminated does not support that claim.

But we also have consider the issue of whether opposition to slavery meant that one believed in equality. There,  black abolitionists learned from their white counterparts  that the answer was a firm 'no.'

Birzer whitewashes the history of the US regarding racism by first reducing it to slavery and then by inaccurately reporting on the Federal Debates as far as we can learn from Madison's notes.  In addition, Birzer neglects to report on how Blacks were referred to as being property without being counted as being fully human or how slavery was being discussed in terms of how to determine the number of Representatives a state should have.

Following slavery came a respite of Reconstruction. But that was soon undone in the South by Jim Crow and followed  by harsh segregation in the North. And none of that includes how Native Americans were ethnically cleansed from the land because of white supremacy. 

The Declaration of Independence used the words 'all men,' but not only were women were not included, the term 'all men' was understood to mean 'all white men.'

The Left is pretty accurate in its depiction of  what happened in American History.

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs for March 16, 2022

 March 9

To Barbara J. Elliot and her article on how Ronald Reagan stood up to what he called the 'Evil Empire.' This article appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

According to the above article, Ronald Reagan qualifies as the leading candidate to play the role of the Pharisee from the parable of the 2 men praying. Not being aware of his own sins that include a more subtle support for racism home and more explicit support abroad with his approach to South Africa, exporter of terrorism to Central American nations, supporter of dictators like Pinochet and Saddam Hussein, and acting as the enemy of unions at home. Reagan modeled how many politically conservative Americans wished to see their country. For they made an idol of their city on the hill nation and, as Chris Hedges has pointed out, the endgame for idolatry is actually self-worship.

And of course, one could easily so see the world back then, and even now, when one so focuses on the sins of others so far away that one's  own sins quickly, and seemingly forever, become out of focus. And that approach to turning a blind eye to one's own sin lives on today among many conservatives only their focus is on domestic groups and ideologies. For in order to preserve the desired image of their own city on the hill, they label groups like BLM and theories like CRT as belonging to a foreign source, Marx to be specific, and thus with their focus so fixated on that, again they become blind to the sins that now have been spotlighted before their very eyes.

It isn't that the Soviet Union wasn't evil, it was. But it wasn't only evil. The Iron Curtain was there primarily not to control but to protect from a repeat of history. It was there to protect from the repeating of past western invasions. 

On the other hand, that city on the hill continued after WW II to do what it did prior to WW I: use military might to serve the interests of homegrown wealth such as in coups that replaced left-leaning democracies in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Greece (1967), and Chile (1973) to name some examples, with dictators who did what our government wanted them to do. One only needs to consult former Marine Corp General Smedley Butler for a list of foreign interventions that the US engaged in to protect wealth at home. And none of that includes the dictators we supported who got into power without our help. 

And none of that also includes America's history of practicing various levels of systemic racism at home. For much of the time while people in East Berlin were being shot for trying to escape to West Berlin, people in America were being hung and/or beaten and otherwise discriminated against because of their race. In fact, some are still being shot today because of their race.

So who was the Evil Empire? Perhaps the fault of that question lies in the use of the singular.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his article on racism and why Christians from the past have embraced it and how to challenge racism. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

How do we Christians address racism? Doesn't the answer to that question depend on who are audience is? If our audience are members of the Church, then certainly we should answer with the Scriptures. But what if our audience are unbelievers or society at large? With Church history being what it is, can we honestly say that we should rely solely on the Scriptures to address racism? After all, since many famous renowned heroes of the Church believed not only in white supremacy, but in slavery as well, our argument against slavery at best borders on being impotent if we rely solely on the Scriptures to challenge racism and slavery. 

While the validity of the Gospel revolves around Jesus rather than us believers, what we do and say, as well as what we refrain from doing and saying, affects the credibility of the Gospel to unbelievers. In addition, God's Word is not the recognized universal standard for truth for most unbelievers. So how do we address racism? And what about all of the other injustices not mentioned above like economic classism, denying climate change, nationalism, war and so on? 

It's not that we should avoid using the scriptures to address racism and the rest of the justice issues listed above; it is that we have to employ a broader appeal using a wider scope of sources than just the Scriptures to address racism. Even then, knowing how some prominent Christians from the past held on to racism and slavery and that we ourselves are vulnerable to promoting other injustices, we should meet resistance to our message with some understanding of the dangers that earthly loyalties pose to all people.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 11

To Bradley Birzer and his article on war and how the US might want to respond to the invasion of the Ukraine. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I very much appreciate Birzer's sentiments about war, especially war now Russia's current invasion. But we should note that our founding fathers were mere mortals who spoke from a different context than the one in which we now live. And if we want to invoke George Washington for advice here about avoiding foreign entanglements, then perhaps we should pay even more attention to The Constitution when it prohibits the long term existence of a standing army.

We should note here the most prevalent fault of traditionalists and old people is that they rely too much on the past to understand and respond to the future. Of course we also need to remember that we can rely too little on what we have learned from the past. But we should also note that unlike in days of our founding fathers yore, devastating wars can begin and end so quickly that Congress has no time to respond.

Unfortunately the world's eagerness, at times, to rely on war not only threatens the national sovereignty of targeted nations as well as the livelihood and well being of its people, a war any place can eventually threaten the lives of people in all places. Why? It is because technology makes the proliferation of WMDs inevitable.

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto was just concerned with WMDs consisting of nuclear devices when it stated the obvious (see  https://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/85russein.pdf   ):

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty.

Yes, Russia started the current war, not the US. But how much was Putin's willingness to go to war is being based on past US interventions and invasions that were prosecuted with impunity? Why didn't the world respond to the US invasion of Iraq or its war on Libya's former regime run by Muammar Gaddafi? Why did the world not respond with sanctions on Israel for its occasional invasions into Lebanon and its sometimes vicious attacks on the Gaza Strip or its confiscation of land from Palestinians living in the West Bank?

Yes, Putin invaded the Ukraine, in part, to restore Russias glory days. But how much of Putin's concept of glory days for today has been influenced by seeing a need to keep up with the US and its freedom to wage wars and interventions?

Comments Which Conseervatives Block From Their Blogs For January 26, 2022

 Jan 22

To Bradley Birzer and his article that reviews how Irving Babbit, a renowned literary critic, viewed the history of Europe and the French Revolution. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative.

Why is it that when conservatives look at the abuses of the French Revolution, they assign fault solely to the people and ideas that started the revolution as if the conditions that led to the Revolution had an insignificant effect on people? Though not mentioned in the above article, the same occurs when conservatives look at the October, 1917 Russian Revolution. The dictatorship that Lenin installed and Stalin fortified was only the fault of Marx even though the historian Orlando Figes pointed out that Lenin's idea of manhood came from Russian literature, not Marx, and that Russia was emerging out of the centuries-long dictatorship of the Tsars.

Without addressing the issue, the reason for that oversight can be found in the article above when reading Birzer's summary of Babbit's interpretation of the changes in Europe:

Mostly, the great humanist claimed, because of the rise of a romantic and mushy humanitarianism, one that desired the individual to throw off the so-called shackles of tradition, custom, mores, and norms, to revolt against the fathers and mothers and against all that one inherited. By doing so, the humanitarians had desired the liberation of the “beautiful souls” but, in reality unleashed a form of Promethean individualism

Even in that statement, there is nothing that is noted about the abuses, as seen in the French Revolution, that are attributed to the centuries of tradition that their ancestors bequeathed to them.

Why was there a French Revolution? It was because the traditions that were left to France smiled on those with wealth and power, the aristocracy, and on those who sided with the aristocracy and the Church--the Roman Church in particular. 

So what if more and more people were struggling financially and with the acquiring of food being made more difficult and expensive. And so what that the 3rd Estate was getting a growing share of the tax burden to pay for wars. The abuses of the French Revolution, according to many conservatives, is to be blamed only on Enlightenment ideas, not the sufferings visited on the people by the nobility supported by the Church. An economic crisis and food shortage  along with a shifting of the tax burden and a lack of political representation for the 3rd Estate, which was approximately 98% of the people, preceded the French Revolution. In short, many people were suffering under an authoritarian but distant regime.

Here is something that conservatives should consider when looking at the French Revolution. When people look to undo long-standing social injustices, they often have a phobic reaction to those injustices. And part of any phobic reaction is to conflate what can be accidentally associated with those injustices with actual causes of the injustices. In essence, because the first fear in any phobia is the fear of being able to distinguish what is an actual threat from that which is only a perceived threat, the reaction to long standing injustice often employs all-or-nothing thinking. Thus, because of the traditional way of life handed down to the 3rd Estate in France, whatever was learned and applied from the Enlightenment thinkers was interpreted with that type of thinking. We could look at the Russian Revolution hijacked by Lenin and see that the same way of thinking took place.

Thus, the first, and a very major, problem that is in the above article is the scapegoating of the Enlightenment because of the conservative refusal to look their "sacred" traditions and such as having as having any significant role in causing the conditions suffered by the 3rd Estate. For if conservatives did consider those conditions, they would have to admit that their much vaunted traditions and such and the rule of those with wealth and power, which was supported by the Church, were very flawed and thus should not be as highly regarded as conservatives want them to be.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 23

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost trying to warn people of the dangers of public school. This appeared in Heidelblog.

First, Clark offers no statistical evidence that sexual assault in schools has been increasing let alone significantly increasing. Anecdotal evidence, though very disturbing, does not provide the evidence for Clark's accusations. The statistical evidence required to show a significant increase means one must do a great deal of statistical work.

Second, it seems that Clark would say that public schools are dangerous for kids outside of the sexual predator issue because of what is being taught--we should note that Clark does not provide evidence for what he says is being taught. Clark sets Critical Theory as opposing critical thought. But what is critical thought to Clark? Does critical thought mean that we accept traditional views of our nation and its place in history and the world? Doesn't Critical Theory teach us to not take the old status quo for granted but to examine much of what came with that old status quo that was previously assumed to be true by the privileged and sometimes even the marginalized? Why can't Critical Theory be seen as an example of critical thought.

Third, Clark's claim that were 7 stockbrokers charged with these claims in a short period of time then the story would be in huge print is pure speculation. It also shows a great deal of ignorance of the lives of many stockholders. The very sinful side of life lived by some stockholders was  mentioned in the documentary Inside Job, if memory serves. It involved significant drug use sexual escapades. and yet we hear little if anything about that.

Clark is more than right in reporting these stories of sexual predators in schools and would be more than right to ask questions. But he does not provide the necessary statistical evidence to support his claims. Clark should also be leery, though, of associating sexual misconduct toward children with secularism or any non-conservative view of things considering the sexual misconduct toward children that exists in churches. 

Fourth, and though I am not a big fan of how some things are taught in the public schools because of what I witnessed when teaching college. But we should note that educators sometimes feel forced to teach more than what Classical Education would require because of the failures of families in caring and properly instructing their own children. We need to understand that the failures we see in the public school system are due to the faulty decisions made by administrators, teachers, parents, and students. Administrators uncritically latch on to new perspectives and theories of education. Teachers, who know better, don't use their unions often enough to challenge  the changes that administrators try to push through. A school district attorney told me that some parents pressure at least the high school in the district he was serving to give their students high enough grades so that they could get into the best colleges. Broken homes, which exist in all economic classes, can seriously harm student performance. Neighborhood schools in the lower economic school districts are handicapped by class sizes and inadequate resources. And there are too many students who are addicted to entertainment and fun who go along for the ride of fewer requirements and grade inflation.

Finally, Clarks seems to be associating conservative or the traditional views of things with what is acceptable to Christianity though he doesn't say that explicitly. In so doing, not only does he help divide the country more than it is, he helps isolates Christians from learning what should be learned from the world. History tells us of the reactions Luther and Calvin had to Heliocentricism. It is not just that they rejected the theory, they ridiculed those who promoted and accepted the idea as pretending to be smarter than God. We Christians continue that historical precedent today by our rejection of the human contributions to Climate Change or our embracing of conspiracy theories about the Covid 19 virus and the vaccines. It seems that we too often determine what is real by the acceptability of the outcomes we see they can produce.

Overall, though Clark brings up some important issues, he does so as an alarmist who seems to have already been promoting an agenda.

There is one other problem with associating the conservative or traditional view of things with what is acceptable to Christianity. That is that such can cause us to merge that view with our Christian faith and thus changing our Christian faith into a cultural religion.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 10, 2021

 Nov 5

To W. Robert Godfrey and his lesson about what is going on today. In this lesson, discussed gender identification and what happens when the Church aligns itself with or obtains great wealth. This was posted on the Abounding Grace website (see https://agradio.org  )

Should note two things here. First, the idea of there are more than two genders is not exclusive to today's Western Civilization. Some Native American tribes recognized up to 5 different genders. We should note that their different gender identifications do not necessarily translate easily into the model being employed now in America.

The different gender identifications found among the Native Americans should partially help us in understanding gender identification in our own society. It should at least tell us that gender identification issues aren't unique to the current course of Western Civilization. But we should also note one other thing. That is that though one's biological sex plays a factor in gender identification, it isn't the only source of influence on one's gender identification. And that has been shown in multiple civilizations. Thus, and this applies to both sides of the debate, we can't equate biological sex with gender identification. That while one's biological sex is based solely on the physical, one's gender identification is based on factors in addition to one's biological sex.

The other point should be made is this. While Godfrey rightly talks negatively about the problems that occur when the Church has or is closely connected to great wealth, today's religiously conservative American Christians, through their loyalty to the Republican Party, are politically siding with great wealth. So how is it that religiously conservative Christians in America have escaped the trap, which Godfrey mentions, that has captured the Church in the past? Here we should note that the dominant branches of the Church in some of the nations that experienced revolutions in the past few centuries were siding with wealth and power at the time. Three examples of that siding occurred in the pre-revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 9

To Bradley Birzer and his article on freedom and the beginning of Western Civilization. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

For all of the nobility ascribed to Western Civilization, it is clear that there is a great disconnect between that and our history. 

If we take America for example and how it was allegedly based on Judeo-Christian tradition, on what part of that tradition was white supremacy based? In seeking more and more land at the expense of the way of life and even the lives of Native Americans, what was the good being sought? For each Black person who was brought or born here to be bought and owned as property, what ideals were being pursued? Or when Jim Crow replaced Slavery or when systemic racism still lingered after the end of Jim Crow, what morals were being pursued?

And what should we say about Europe with its constant wars over land and religion? What about European imperialism and colonization? What should we say about England's separation of Church and state when people came here to escape its religious persecution only to start persecuting those from other denominations once they got here? 

Why is it that the above article only associates idealism with Western Civilization and  neglects to mention that horrific atrocities were part of history of Western Civilization? Why is that? Perhaps it is because we long to pray the prayer of the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying (Luke 18:9-14). For it seems that the only freedom being sought by apologists for Western Civilization is the freedom from having to look into a non-magic mirror. For the measure of our nobility is found not in how we treat our own, but in how we treat others.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 2, 2021

 Oct 13

To R. Scott Clark and David Vandrunen for Clark's blogpost citation of a Vandrunen article on racism from a Christian perspective. This appeared in the Heidelblog

Vandrunen's full article can be found at

https://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=874

Most of the points made by Vandrunen in his article, and not just the part that was quoted above,  need some degree of correction and/or modification.

Take his first point, 'Race does not exist, although racism does.' The premise is not true when one considers the dictionary definition of race: 'any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry' (see  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race   ). 

I was recently reminded of race during lunch with friends. One was African American and the other was literally from Africa. My friends had obvious differences between each and with me and those physical differences go back to ancestry. Now does that existence of race imply that we have no common ancestor? No. But a lot of "funny" things happened to different races on the way here from the Garden of Eden. 

The recognition of race has often been accompanied by assumptions of superiority and inferiority, and thus entitlement, which accompany the recognition of racial differences.

Thus the call for deracialization must be modified. It must be modified for two reasons: First, there are physical differences that exist between people due to common ancestries; and Second, we can't assume that racism will no longer exists if we were fully implement deracialization.

One of the excellent points made by CRT is what it calls racism, which is the oppression of people based on race, is experienced by many Blacks in more ways than just personal racial prejudice. Racism is experienced by many Blacks by institutional and social powers. Racism is still experienced in encounters with law enforcement and the criminal justice system, in terms of voting and voting rights, and in several ways in the economy. In addition, many Blacks still experience the after effects of past racism. 

We might also want to consider that deracialization forgets the different ways people are perceived because of their race. Because Blacks have been viewed not just as inferior, but they were treated as property for much of US history. Thus, we need to pay special attention to the accomplishments of people of color. These accomplishments help point out our equality and debunk assumptions of inferiority.

What we must be careful of  in critically thinking about racism is to use our theology and our subcultural biases to limit our understanding of how racism could be experienced by Blacks and other minorities. Because the charge of  racism is itself stigmatizing  and indicting, we need to admit that we have an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to acknowledging the full impact of both yesteryear's and today's racism as well as whether we are racist. It's easy for us to see the systemic racism that existed during slavery and Jim Crow. But when many Blacks talk about experiencing systemic racism today, we tend to balk. Such  balking is not a biblical reaction but a subcultural one. 

We cannot afford to use our theology, our ideology, or the image we prefer to have of our nation today or ourselves  to deduce that systemic racism no longer pervasively exists today. In fact, many of criteria that today's CRT proponents use to detect racism were used by Martin Luther King Jr. In particular, we are talking about the equality of results criteria (see  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xsbt3a7K-8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xsbt3a7K-8   ). If we are going adequately understand what CRT is saying, then we must actively study it to see the continuities it has with the Civil Rights Movement as well as how it distinguishes itself from Critical Legal Studies and its criticisms of the politically conservative color-blind movement promoted by the Reagan Administration and scholars such as Thomas Sowell. For here we need to remember that many Blacks who agree with CRT are speaking from their experiences. And if we attempt to deduce that what they say they are experiencing is not true, we then show ourselves to be deliberately deaf to their complaints. And such deafness stands as a tremendous stumbling block for many might otherwise listen to the Gospel.

Finally, the Church has no choice but to be political in today's world. But that option for the Church is not to be political as the world is where one chooses to advance one own side's agenda at the expense of honesty and the truth. Rather, the Church must speak prophetically to the individual and corporate sins that each person and political and ideological side promotes and/or commits without commenting on any proposed ideological solution. 

Why is that our only option? It is because politics contain both ambiguous and non ambiguous moral choices. When a particular party advocates actions that suppress freedoms for a given group, the Church needs to speak prophetically to that suppression and the partisanship in which that is taking place. And while the religiously conservative American Christians have no problems with pointing out where they believe that their own rights are being infringed on, they have great difficulty in perceiving and acknowledging when they themselves are infringing on the rights of others. But why do we need to do that? It is for the reputation of the Gospel. That is that once a person or group identifies itself with Christ, everything it does and doesn't do, says and doesn't say is associated with the Gospel and acts to either hurt or enhance the reputation of the Gospel. That truth should give us all, as individuals, reason for pause because of our own sinfulness. But it should also give the Church abundant reasons for speaking prophetically against injustices in the world. That is because most, if not all injustices, violate either literally or in principle the commandments that prohibit murder and/or stealing. And for the past few centuries, through both advocacy and silence, the predominant branches of the Church in many areas in the world has aligned itself with wealth and power. In other words, we have a a lot of damage control and damage repentance to make up for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 15

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that calls the pandemic a 'religious event' and a lot of trust in the science of the vaccines a religion. This appeared in Heidelblog.

According to the logic used in the above article, the following statements must be true:

So the existence of polio and smallpox were religious events and those who flocked to the vaccines were making science their new religion.

We should not trust that the sun is the center of our universe and that gravity exists because Science does not trust, it doubts and tests. Of course, if science is always doubting and testing, then it never arrives at any firm answers.

Do we see the problem with the above logic yet? When religious leaders call solutions to crises a religion, what they are really doing is announcing the existence of a competitor in explaining the world. Calling science a religion because people are using what was learned from science as a help shows more than just a stretching of the word 'religion,' it's a defensive reaction to seeing another source of influence as a competitor to explaining the world around us. 

Who has a better position to to explain the different realities that we see around us? For example, who is in the best position to tell us whether climate change is at least partially but significantly caused by human activity? Are theologians in the best position or are climate scientists in the best position? Who is in the best position to tell us how effective vaccines and mandates are in curbing the current pandemic? Is it theologians or scientists who specialize in the areas of study that are concerned with viruses and how the body reacts to viruses?

Back when Heliocentrism was being floated as an explanation for a part of reality, both Calvin and Luther firmly rejected what Copernicus proposed. They too saw Copernicus's theory as a stepping on their turf. Because the Bible had already told them, however indirectly, the relationship between the sun and the earth, they felt comfortable in not just rejecting heliocentrism, they went on to ridicule anyone who proposed such a theory. Protestants followed Calvin and Luther's lead and the Roman Church then followed their lead. How dare a person use mathematics to contradict what was understood back then what God had to say.

Protestants and those from the Roman Church eventually got it right and the consequences were minimal. Today, not doing something about climate change because there are 'reasonable grounds' to question whether human activity is significantly contributing to it or to resist vaccine mandates because of one doubts the science behind it can have, and in some cases are having, disastrous, harmful effects on people. Never mind the percentage of  climate change scientists who are convinced by the evidence. And, btw, no one is telling dissenters that they cannot question what is being claimed, if all crises become religious events and the proposed solutions become religions themselves, then who can present themselves as being in the best position to people through those events but theologians. And that is what happens when we allow some to so easily expand the definition of religion.

The above article seems to be in denial of what logically follows calling the current pandemic a 'religious event' and the trusting of medical science's response as a religion even though no one is saying that what the medical scientists claim should not be questioned. But the vaccines those scientists have provided have proven to be helpful and even lifesaving. And if more people had followed their lead, we possibly could have avoided the overwhelming of our healthcare resources and prevented many deaths.

The above article seems to be nothing more than an attempt to defend one's turf not realizing that just as we should let vaccines be vaccines and science be science, we should let theologians be theologians and nothing more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 17

To Bradley Birzer and his blog article on how great the American Republic was and how we can make it great again. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog. 

All too often, probably most of the time, our study of history and our learning religion share a common trait. That trait is that what should be a quest for truth has morphed into a search for personal significance. And that significance isn't found in realistic portrayals of our faults and sins, our significance is found in delusions of goodness and honor that we are fond to have dancing in our heads.

In particular, in terms of history we find those delusions when we magnify how we treated those who were like us while we minimize how we treated those who were different. In religion, we focus on how we think that we have been loving of God and people while we overlook our worship of idols and our coldness toward those who are different or toward those whose need would cost us more than we want to part with.

Such is my summary of the above article. The above article follows the road most often traveled.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 20

To R. Scott Clark and Carl Trueman for Clark's blogpost article that consists of quoting the part of Carl Trueman's article that tells us Christians not to imitate the world in how we react to the changing of the moral guard of society where Christianity has been replaced by movements like Post Modernism even though such a change threatens to marginalize us Christians in society. This appears in Heidelblog.

Trueman's article can be found at

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2021/11/the-failure-of-evangelical-elites

A few comments are in order regarding the cited part of Trueman's article. 

First, when Trueman talks about Christianity's place in society coming under threat, what was that place? Was it not one of supremacy over other beliefs, views, and practices so that it exercised various levels of supremacy over society? Should we lament over that lost privileged status?

Second,  when Trueman talks about Christianity being pushed to the margins, we might ask who was pushed to the margins when Christianity had its its day in the sun here? We do know that throughout US history, when Christianity had its privileged place, people of color, women, and the LGBT community were all marginalized to varying degrees. 

Trueman is complaining about how, with Post Modernism, unbelievers are turning the tables by imposing their moral values and thus marginalizing us Christians. At the same time, Trueman rightfully warns us not to conform to the 'spirit of the age.' And yet, with unbelievers turning the tables by imposing their moral standards on us, aren't they the ones who should be warned not to conform to the spirit that Christianity, as represented by many Christians, has been displaying rather than warning us believers not to conform to the spirit of this age?

We need to escape this black-white worldview where we Christians believe that either we must rule over others to some degree or be ruled over by them. We should seek to coexist with other views rather than trying to gain a privileged place over them in society so as to push our moral agenda, in particular our sexual moral agenda, on them. It is this belief that either we rule over them or they will rule over us that creating stumbling blocks to people who would otherwise listen to the Gospel.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 29

Tor R. Scott Clark and his blog article that says that if we only sung what was in God's Word, we could avoid singing songs about the climate change like the one he showed in his article. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The question we have to ask is whether the above hymn is better than the sound of climate change silence from the pulpit.

BTW, I am not a fan singing the above hymn in Church and its words are more focused on God than some worship songs I heard. 

Also, if we only sung from God's Word, then we would miss out on some wonderful hymns. The changing world demands that we stewardship of the world needs to change. So are we afraid to admit that the world is changing because then we must change with it to be good stewards of the world?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometime in late October

To Bradley Birzer and his blog article on what is the essence of Freedom. This appears in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

The essence of Freedom in society is not necessarily, it is equality. For equality is the first limit on our freedoms and distinguishes what we call freedom from what would rightfully be called privilege. Here we should note that  Freedom - equality = privilege. And privilege is all too often the result of refusing to share power and/or wealth.

When we insist on our freedom at the expense of another person's freedom, we are insisting on being privileged over that other person. Yes, we have duties that puts limits on our freedoms. But the first consideration  of what determines what our duties are in society is equality It is equality. So equality is the essence of Freedom in society.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 30

 To W. Robert Godfrey and his audio presentation about why America is changing in terms of race, sex, and so forth. This appeared on the Abounding Grace Radio website (click here for Abounding Grace Radio's website).

One key question is what constitutes a rejection of the Gospel? Is it a rejection of Jesus as God and how through faith God saves us from God's deserved wrath for our sins or is it a rejection of a Christianity's past privileged place in society expressed in law and culture? 

Another important question is how should we try to change things in our nation in the light of the 1st Amendment? Does seeking a privileged place for Christianity in the state and society lead to violating that Amendment?

Another important question is whether those in privileged groups can recognize problems and hardships that other experience. After all, being privileged can blinds one from seeing the sufferings of those who are not privileged especially those whose suffering is caused by the privileged place one's own group has in society. This is most evident in the wholesale rejection of BLM and CRT. It is most evident in the reaction against the Obergefell decision as well as the recent court decision that applies Civil Rights laws to discrimination against the LGBT community. It is most evident in our ignorance of the plight of Native-Americans. It is most evident in any opposition to increasing the minimum wage or to giving more workplace power to workers.

So it will be interesting to see if Godfrey addresses the above issues in answering the questions he posed in his presentation