Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 11, 2024

 June 15

To Heidelblog and David Hall for the part of David Hall's articles (Part 1 and Part 2) that review what went on at the most recent Presbyterian Church of America General Assembly meeting.

It seems that's some labels have acquired unexpected implied traits. So is the case with the the conservative use of the labels 'conservative' and 'progressive.'

Conservatives seem to always imply infallibility when using the word 'conservative' and being fatally flawed with the 'progressive' label. And so, that reminds me of a Martin Luther King Jr. quote from his speech against the Vietnam War:

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

Because of their use of the above mentioned implied traits, conservatives appear to be replacing the word 'Western' with the word 'conservative' in the above quote. And so it seems that it is conservatives who are actually  putting themselves in an even a less flattering light than they intend to put progressives in due to the traits they imply when using those two labels.

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

Aug 3

To Heidelblog and Michael Wear and his article advertising his book that labels the political divisions in America and the Church 'Political Therapeutic Deism. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The full article can be found at:

    https://mereorthodoxy.com/political-therapeutic-deism

It is understandable as to why politics has a divisive effect on the Church. It is because, among other issues, politics deal with an array of moral values. And which political groups we most associate with can partially reveal the moral values about which we are most concerned. And our differences can arise from having different priorities of moral concerns people have.

But since no political ideology or party encompasses all moral values about which we should be concerned with as Christians, each political ideology and party are not only incomplete, but inconsistent as well. Take what is called pro-life for example. To reduce the meaning of being pro-life to concerns about abortion produces vast inconsistencies in what it should mean to be pro-life. Likewise, to not include concerns about abortion is to produce a deep inconsistency with what it should mean to be pro-life. And so which political ideology or party is consistently pro-life? And here we should note that being consistently pro-life does not mean that we have covered all moral issues with which politics is involved.

Since I am not now able to read the whole article, I will speculate as to what isn't covered that can explain what the writer wanted to explain. The divisions occur when we act like the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying (Luke 18:9-14) with our moral concerns. That occurs when we exalt ourselves over others because they don't share our priority of values or even values while neglecting to be even aware of the moral values that our own political views fail to adequately address. What James said in the second half of chapter 2 in his epistle also explains why we have divisions.

That Phariseeism is something to avoid almost at all costs. Why? Consider the plight of that Pharisee from the parable.

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

August 27

To Heidelblog and D.G. Hart whose article was quoted in part on HeidelBlog. His article  reviewed Tim Alberta's book: <I>The Kingdom, The Power, And The Glory</i>. Alberta's book is about the Evangelism and its recent political ventures.

Hart's full article can be found at:

    https://lawliberty.org/book-review/whats-left-to-say-about-evangelicals/

The trouble with Evangelicalism is, like Christian Fundamentalism, how it is defined. The original definitions of both terms focused on their religious beliefs. But then, because of the traits of some of its members, Evangelicalism's working definition began go deemphasize its religious beliefs and began to revolve around traits that had nothing to do with Evangelicalism's religious tenets just as what happened to Christian Fundamentalism.

As with  Christian Fundamentalism,  the change in the working definition of Evangelicalism was in part due to the desire of some Evangelicals to distance themselves from fellow Evangelicals because of their traits, in particular their political views. And so some Evangelicals decided to separate themselves because of their political disagreements rather than to simply admit that Evangelicals do not form a monolith. Had they done that, it is possible that Evangelicalism's working definition would still revolve around its religious beliefs.

History shows that Evangelicalism's venture into the political realm started decades earlier that what Hart claimed. It started with its opposition to the government's efforts to force racial integration onto some Evangelical institutions such as Bob Jones. What followed that became the focus on abortion. And what ignited the biggest Evangelical passion for politics was the 2015 Obergefell Decision by the Supreme Court. Since then, a concerted effort by a mixture of Evangelicals, Christian Fundamentalists, and Roman Catholics to '<b>take back</b>' America to its Christian roots has begun. Unfortunately, America's Christian roots were determined greatly by a demographics that no longer exists.

I can't speak to Hart's comments on Alberta's book since I have not read his book. But there are things about what Hart said that indicate that, like what a baseball catcher does with pitches, he is sometimes more interested in framing events and descriptions than being fair and objective. Take the following quote from Hart's article for example:'unpeaceful protests on January 6, 2021'

How is it that a violent action taken to overthrow the results of a legitimate election in an attempt to keep the sitting President in office can be legitimately described as being merely an 'unpeaceful protest'?

OR

'As dubious as the diversity rationale now appears—how could white Protestants be outsiders in white Protestant America?—the study of evangelicals coincided with the need to understand a new and vigorous electoral bloc, namely, the Religious Right. '

The problem with that quote is in the question asked. Instead of asking how could white Protestants be outsiders in a white Protestant America, Hart should have asked how did white Protestants BECOME outsiders?  In addition, curiosity about Evangelicalism might have been initiated by JFK's Presidential campaign and questions about whether he could be elected because of his Roman Catholic affiliation. Also, what diversity rationale is Hart claiming to be dubious?

OR

'The election of 2016 practically took all scholars by surprise (some needed smelling salts). It also gave legitimacy to scholarship that explained Donald Trump’s popularity among white evangelicals. Several evangelical scholars went to work to explain the racism, psychological instability, and misogyny that contributed to born-again Protestant votes for Trump. At the same time, evangelical leaders and pundits piled on with books of their own (for instance, David French, Russell Moore, and Peter Wehner) that show evangelicals to be hypocritical Christians and unreliable citizens. What used to be a success story of an obscure group rising to prominence in American life, evangelicalism is now one of the many social ills responsible for spreading illiberal sentiments among the American people.'

With Evangelicalism's ties to America's past which Hart mentions early in his article, perhaps America's history of racism also began to shed light on pathologies that exist in Evangelicalism. Here we should note that Hart is a historian, and yet he does not attribute any of the problems in America's racist past to Evangelicalism's present social standing.

IMO, if my fellow Evangelicals and Fundamentalists want to do well in politics, which is what Hart wants them to do, then they must see the current political battle in the West between Democracy with equality vs authoritarianism with hierarchy.  They need to see this distinction and understand which side that they are currently, and unfortunately, on. I hasten to add that how Hart sees Evangelicals and Fundamentalists would do well in politics could very well differ from how I see them doing well.

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

August 30

To Heidelblog and Chris Gordon for the part of Gordon's article that discusses why people reflexively follow Pastors who present themselves as omnicompetent. The title of the Heidelblog post is different.

Chris Gordon's complete article can be found at:

https://agradio.org/blog/the-cult-following-of-the-omnicompetent-pastor

I am not writing to disagree with anything that Gordon said. In fact, I agree with what he wrote. But I wanted to add something that might help us understand why, even in not troubling times, people are looking for authoritative sounding voices to follow. 

It has to do with what Fromm described as the passive authoritarian personality type, or the authoritarian follower to be less verbose. Such people are not just attracted to authoritative sounding voices, they are also looking for simplistic answers that they can understand. But most of all, they want a, what I call, nanny thinker who can tell them what to think. They want to listen to someone with whom they can reflexively agree.

Fromm said that the basic motivation for the authoritarian follower is fear. It can be a fear because of the confusion of the times. But the fear is more general than that. The fear comes from a need to be attached to something significant. And so the more authoritative a leader can sound or the more credentials a leader can portray themselves as having, the more personal significance can be gained by attaching oneself to that person.

One factor that can mitigate the fear that authoritarian followers can have is to become more independent in their reasoning. But a balance is needed here. That is because there is an authority figure who is omnicompetent to speak on all subjects. That is God. And He has spoken to us in His Word.  But what muddies the waters here is how does one interpret God's Word. We do have guides from the past and present, but they are never infallible and were often so influenced by their times that they sometimes read ideas into the Scriptures. And though there are issues in which there can be divergence in thinking among those who believe in Christ, there are other issues in which we can't afford to tolerate diverse views.

But the above introduces a complexity that many authoritarian followers cannot tolerate at the current time. And so the solution is to try to have ourselves and our fellow believers be more like the Bereans who tested everything by the Scriptures (see Acts 17). They both depended on the Scriptures and had a degree of independence so that they even tested the words of the Apostle Paul by the Scriptures. 

And so we need to move people to become a mixture of being dependent and independent. We need to be dependent on God's Word and independent enough from people, even the authoritative speaking kind, so that we can learn from them without reflexively accepting everything they say.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 31, 2022

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.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 10, 2022

 August 3

To Chris Gordon and his article on definitions and the Identity Culture crisis which was partially quoted in a Heidelblog post.

Chris Gordon's article can be found at:

    https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2022/07/the-salt-of-the-earth-and-light-of-the-world/

I am not sure that we have an identity crisis today, but our identities are tied to the groups we belong to. Those groups consist of both voluntary groups we join and groups based on our own characteristics.

The fault world's message to us about identity isn't that we shouldn't turn inward, it is that we should only turn inward. The message of Christ to us about our identity is complicated. It is complicated because we are both witnesses to sinners and we are sinners as well. And while Gordon's message focused on the former, it seems that the latter is often unmentioned by many Christian leaders when talking about our identity in Christ. For while we can call ourselves the salt and light of the world, we must also always identify as the Tax Collector from the parable of the 2 men praying. We must also always identify as him because, in that parable, it was the religious person, the Pharisee, who could see no sin in himself and thus he saw himself as morally superior to the Tax Collector.

And since we are to forgive others as God forgave us in Christ, and Stephen provides an example of showing such forgiveness in Acts when he is stoned to death, we must also always identify as the Tax Collector from that parable is essential to our lives as Christians.

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

August 4

To Ben Dunson and the part of his article that was quoted in a Heidelblog post that appealed to Kuyper's approach to supporting Christianity as having a place of supremacy over all other faiths and other groups in society. 

Ben Dunson's full article can be found at:

    https://americanreformer.org/2022/07/religious-liberty-without-liberalism/

While Transformationalists are upfront about calling for a return to some form of Christendom or Christian Ethnocracy, appealing to Natural Law is the 2KT way of being closet supporters of a return to Christendom or Christian Ethnocracy. 

Neither group understands that their calls for Christendom or Christian Ethnocracy are attacks on Democracy. They are attacks on Democracy because besides majority rule, Christendom and Christian Ethnocracy reserves a place of supremacy over society for the Church.

And neither group will admit that their appeal to Natural Law is an appeal to theology rather than the Scriptures. And that Theology was written during a previous time of Christendom by theologians who were authoritarians at heart. While the Old Testament was mostly written about a religiously homogeneous society, the New Testament gave no explicit instructions on to rule over a religiously heterogeneous society. There are statements suggest or implicit describe how a religiously heterogeneous society should be run, but none of them support the Church's promotion of Christendom or Christian Ethnocracy. 

What Ben Dunson article basically says is that Kuyper knew how to institute Christendom  better than the Constantinian approach. And he does so because of what he sees in society. And though elective abortion must end, is Dunson seeking to justify oppressing certain groups in society with his appeal to Kuyper?

The 'neutrality' that Dunson so opposes is the basis for ensuring equality among religious groups and unbelievers in society.

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

Aug 5

To Michael J. Connolly and his article on Toryism and how it was thought of in England and how it could apply in the US. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

According to Connolly, Toryism is Conservatism done right and thus Toryism is described in a self-flattering way.  According to Connolly, if Toryism is adequately followed, it would produce a relative  utopia, which is a utopia where the best possible state of affairs is achieved. But if Toryism also believes in the imperfectability of human nature, can we say with absolute certainty that Conservatism done right is always beneficial and that it is producing a relative utopia?

We might also note one of the prerequisites of Toryism. That prerequisite is to achieve a certain degree of conformity in morals and religion in a given nation. But we need to ask this question: Who gets to designate which morals and religious beliefs serve as the standard to which we must conform? And what do we do with those who do not adhere and thus resist those standards? We might also ask who gets to distinguish what is individuality and what is individualism since Toryism smiles on the former and frowns on the latter? Connolly seems to suggest that it is select groups of elites get to do that and whatever is left of democracy gets to ratify rather than question those standards. But which elites get to do that? And what will they do with those who do not conform enough to what they think society should practice and how it should think?

Certainly unlimited individualism and free markets are causing people to exploit and abuse each other. But is Toryism the answer in multicultural societies? And if not, do we choose to err on the side of multiculturalism or Toryism? These questions show one of the flaws of Toryism: the lack of robustness. The more diversity there exists in society, the harder it is for Toryism to "work."

We need to note that there is no human ideology that is omniscient. That means that there is no ideology that has all of the answers. That is true for Leftist, Liberal, and Conservative ideologies. Toryism is an ideology and thus no matter how we describe it, it will never be omniscient. And so we need to borrow from other ideologies as we employ parts of Toryism as we address our society's problems.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 6, 2022

 March 29

To R. Scott Clark and C.S. Lewis for Clark's blogpost that quotes C.S. Lews  as he wrote about democracy in education and its effects. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Some don't really understand what egalitarianism is all about. While others don't understand the present time because they have removed its context, which is the past, from how they interpret the present time. It is important to keep the context for the present in mind when interpreting it because that context will tell us what to accept or modify in the present and what to discard.

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

To Michael Young and his article that gives a harsh crituqe of Kristin Kobes Du Mez's book: Jesus and John Wayne. This appeared in the American Reformer blog.

Criticism regarding religiously conservative Christianity has more often than not become a contest between those whose arguments are deductively arrived at vs those whose arguments are based on inductive investigations. The problem for the former group is that they fail to recognize that conclusions arrived at deductively become suspect when they are challenged by the results of inductive investigations. And that is what appears to be the contest in the above review of Du Mez's book, Jesus and John Wayne--I personally like to add 'The Baptist' at the end of the title of the book because of the wife's first attempt to find the book.

One problem with the above review is that the reference to 'Evangelicalism' can be ambiguous. That is because Evangelicalism is sometimes represented by a certain set of beliefs while at other times it is represented by its people. The same can be said of Christianity.  And if Du Mez is not taking issue the Evangelical Theology, especially that which is concerned with the Godhead and Soteriology, it is concerned with its people and its theology that concerns itself with how we are to carry out the 2nd Table of the Law as the Church. 

Now it seems to me that while we religiously conservative Christians must never budge on theology concerning the Godhead and Soteriology, we should be open to hearing criticisms about how the Church has either taught about our relationships with others or how it has treated them. For it is the in criticisms about the latter that most of the criticisms leveled toward the Church can be found. 

But Young's response is both authoritarian and unnecessarily defensive.  His response is authoritarian because it seeks to discredit, by association, Du Mez's claims rather than to deal with them rationally on a case by case basis--again, when conclusions arrived at deductively are challenged by inductive investigations, something is amiss. 

Another aspect of Young's response that is authoritarian is that it employs a great deal of black-white thinking. In particular, Young sees nothing of value in Post Modernism even though Post Modernism has been rightly complaining about abuses committed by those who feel entitled to commit them because of their exclusive claims to knowing the truth. And it is those exclusive claims to truth that have enabled many a leader to abuse or exploit others--something Du Mez has been trying to point out.

Acknowledging the truths that Du Mez has happened on doesn't imply that all of her claims are correct no more than citing the weaknesses of Post Modernism implies that it has nothing of value to offer. And just because Post Modernism points out that everything is written in and interpreted by its own context, that doesn't imply that there is no absolute truth.

Young exhibits another flaw that so many of us religiously conservative Christians seem to have in abundance. That flaw is that we tend to try to deduce what all of reality must be rather than learn some reality by experience.

So Du Mez has pointed out some serious flaws in the Church regarding how we treat others. Why should that bother us when our faith revolves around what we believe about the Godhead and our reliance on Christ for the forgiveness of our sins. But such bothers Young and my guess is that Young is experiencing a tribal anxiety because some of his past heroes and horizontal theologies are being challenged and have been found wanting. That doesn't imply that everything he has been taught is false.

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

April 1

To Joseph Pearce and his article that challenges the progressive notion that conservatives are on the wrong side of history. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

Besides the gross misrepresentation of progressives as being so monolithic, we should note that we don't have to be approaching some desired utopia to realize when someone is on the wrong side of history on a given issue. For example, we know that those who supported slavery in past were on the wrong side of history. And yet, we are far from any of the dreams dancing around in the heads of progressives.

A number of people whom many conservatives would regard as progressive don't believe that comfort will rid us of  crime and problems. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't believe that. He didn't measure progress by how many new comforts we have but by the quality of our relationships with others. Chris Hedges doesn't see our society or the world progressing toward some absolute or relative utopia. Rather, he has a very pessimistic view of where the world is going. Noam Chomsky automatically dismisses any notion of achieving a utopia. 

And though I don't deserve to be included in the above mix, I lean toward the real left politically but also hold to the 5 basic tenets of Christian Fundamentalism. I remember discussing with a friend how our society has made progress in some areas but has suffered set backs in other areas.

The above article seems to have been written to paint progressives as having nothing to contribute to society. Of course, the above article complains when conservatives are so portrayed. In either case, it is arrogance to believe that we need not listen to the views of others. That because there is no ideology that is omniscient, we all have things to learn from each other. And thus ideological tribalism is harmful because it is based on an obvious false presumptuous assumption.

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

To Chris Gordon and his blogpost on using the Confessions, here he is speaking about the Reformed Confessions, as an aid in pursuing sanctification. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio blog.

I struggle with the above article because I believe that our Reformed Confessions encompass too wide a scope of subjects. As a result we can easily develop an ever growing dependency on the confessions that can compete with our dependency on the Scriptures. 

Another problem with using confessions that have such a large scope of subjects is that it unnecessarily divides not only given movements, like the Reformed churches, but the Church itself. Tribalism sets in afterwards and with tribalism can come Christians persecuting other Christians because of the disparities in the standard beliefs that each set of Christians hold too.

But perhaps the biggest problem that can come with a high dependence on the confessions is that once we rely too heavily on the confessions to understand the Scriptures, the confessions become a canon above the canon where the confessions make up the first canon and the Scriptures make up the second canon.

If our confessions did not cover such a wide scope of material, we could better distinguish what are the essential beliefs to those who call themselves Reformed  without being unnecessarily divisive and without putting one's preferred set of confessions on too high a pedestal.

Mark 7 should effectively warn us against putting any set of confessions, a.k.a., traditions, on too high a pedestal. Will we let Mark 7 speak to us effectively?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 9, 2022

 Feb 24

To W. Robert Godfrey and his adult class presentation on the end of Christendom and the effects of that end. This was posted on the Abounding Grace Radio website.

The more I listen to this series by Godrey, the more I am disappointed by his lack of scholarly approach to the subjects and groups he discusses. How much has Godfrey studied or knows about Darwin, Marx, Freud, CRT, BLM, the Finnish Bishop who is on trial in Finland for hate speech, and so on. In some of these cases, Godfrey states that he is not that familiar with these groups, people, or ideologies and yet he speaks as if he understands the core issues involved. In other cases, he simply demonstrates that lack of familiarity by what he says about them.

But what Godfrey lacks in familiarity, he more than makes up with in presenting the traditional conservative view of and response to these different groups, people, and movements. In that, Godfrey demonstrates a lack of awareness of the key weakness of any traditionalist regardless of the ideology that traditionalist belongs to. For that key weakness is that traditionalists, whether they are conservatives, liberals, or leftists, rely too much on the past to understand and respond to the present.

Are the people, ideologies, or movements really at odds with each other? Are they all reductionistic? Considering that Marx and Freud were not contemporaries and their specialties were in different subjects, it is a bit premature to say that they or their ideas opposed each other. But we do get a sort of marriage between the two in Frankfort School, which Godfrey never mentioned. Or while Godfrey mentions all of the chief sins that have been identified and addressed by different movements and his hope that these different movements would spend their time attacking each other, Intersectionality weds the concerns of the various groups that have been oppressed. Godfrey never mentions that. In fact, while Godfrey seems to state that BLM is only concerned with black lives, such is not the case since it is also embraces intersectionality.

When talking about the Finnish Bishop who is on trial for hate speech because of what was said about homosexuals, is Godfrey aware that the key evidence, the pamphlet about the supposed Christian view of sex, not only says that it speaks for the Bible, it also claims to speak science in stating that homosexuality is a threat to society? Is that the Christian view? It isn't the view of science? And so is it the Christian view of homosexuality that is investigated there or a view of homosexuality by a particular Christian who misspoke for at least science if not for Christianity. Yes, homosexuality is a sin, but so is idolatry. And so do we classify other religions as a threat to society?

And having known people in BLM, I am puzzled as to who in BLM thinks that only black lives matter?

Finally, Godfrey seems unaware of the distinction that CRT makes between personal racist views and racism. Why does it make that distinction? It is because despite the bigotry suffered by ethnic groups of whites such as the Irish and the Italians, both of whom Godfrey mentions, their experiences with racial, or more precisely ethnic, oppression does not compare in magnitude or structure with the oppression that blacks have faced in this nation. CRT acknowledges that everyone is vulnerable to having personal racist attitudes and beliefs. But none of the other groups that Godfrey mentioned has the kind or depth of race-based oppression faced by blacks in this nation. None of the groups Godfrey mentioned faced the combination of systemic racism along with widespread racist views and beliefs expressed by individuals.

It is true that those other groups do not mention sin and the need for salvation in Christ. But then again, that is not the sphere in which they operate. In the meantime, we all need to understand the Post Modern criticism of those who claim to have exclusive knowledge of the truth. We don't have to nor should agree with  Post Modernism's response to those who claim to have exclusive knowledge of the truth. But we need to understand that criticism lest we practice those attitudes and actions that Post Modernism rightly identifies as problems.

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

Feb 25

To R. Scott Clark and Jon Payne for Clark's article that consists of a substantial quote of Jon Payne's article lamenting the defeat of Overtures #23 and #37 in the PCA. Those overtures would have prohibited Christian men who struggle with Same Sex Attraction (SSA) but remain celibate from hold offices in the PCA. Clark's article appeared in Heidelblog.

Jon Payne's article can be found at:

https://gospelreformation.net/reality-check-the-future-of-the-pca/

I am glad that the Overtures #23 and #37 were defeated. They targeted those who have been struggling with homosexual desires with a similar marginalization in the PCA that has, until recently, been employed against the LGBT community  in society for most of America's history. In fact, with the way that those supporting the overtures appeared to be looking down on those struggling with SSA, you would have thought that that those who struggle with SSA were spiritual lepers who would spread their disease to others in the denomination.

The real issue here is one of comfort. Those who supported the overtures expressed tremendous discomfort with having to work as equals with those they perceive to be a spiritual threat and inferior. That discomfort also use to exist in society and was a cause for society's past marginalization of homosexuals. So perhaps the failure of those overtures to pass illustrate that those supporting the overtures had not proved their claim that Side B Christians are a threat or inferior. Thus, the failure of the overtures might be  a sign of maturity by many who opposed them.

Also, Jon Payne's article laments over the fact that the PCA is now becoming progressive. And perhaps that lament itself illustrates part of the problem with those supporting the overtures. Here we should note that Payne doesn't say why being progressive is bad. Rather, he uses the word as a pejorative label. Such a use of pejoratives is both authoritarian and, logically speaking, begs the question. In addition, such a use clearly signals an intolerance of the political positions that many who  voted for the overtures are not willing to tolerate in the denomination. Thus, that warning might illustrate one reason why those supporting the overtures appear to have not proved why their fears of Side B Christians are justified.

What is overlooked by those supporting the overtures is the magnitude of the spiritual and moral battle Side B Christians face and the internal turmoil they live with because they want something that is unnatural. Those who remain celibate are exhibiting a level of resolve that many of the rest of us may not have. And their internal suffering goes unrecognized because we don't know what nature is saying them on the inside. Here we should note that nature is fallen. We know that the design of nature speaks against their desires. But does fallen nature say to them through their minds and bodies?

Hopefully, the PCA will both resist the calls to counter the defeat of the overtures called for by the writer of the article and will hold a firm line on celebacy for those struggling with SSA.

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

Feb 28

To Joseph Musomelli and his article that tells us not to demonize Russia for its actions toward the Ukraine. His article was written in 2017 in reference to the annexation of Crimea and was reposted on the Imaginative Conservative blog

The above article needs updating. It needs to include the current invasion of the Ukraine as well as the inclusion of some forgotten items from the past as well as Russia's own current state of affairs.

There is no justification for the invasion of the Ukraine. Citing similar past actions by the West, especially by the US, can only serve to indict the West for those actions rather than minimize the evil that Russia is practicing. 

Of course pushing NATO eastward is a possible contributing factor to the invasion. But note Putin's logic in appealing to historic ties between Russia and the Ukraine. Such an appeal is used to justify his unilateral decision of absorbing the Ukraine into Russia and doing so at a high human and moral cost. Using NATO's expansion to justify or minimize the Russian invasion would be somewhat comparable to using the effects of the Versailles Treaty to do the same with Hitler's conquest of Western Europe.

Also, we need to consider Putin's past actions to determine what this invasion of the Ukraine reveals. Considering Putin's harsh treatment of Chechnya, the deadly silencing of critics within its own nation, and denying the emergence of viable competing political parties and candidates makes the invasion of the Ukraine seem more consistent with a pattern of deep authoritarianism rather than with that of serving any legitimate self-interest.

Finally, this invasion puts  Putin's western religiously conservative Christian fans in a dilemma. For on the one hand, these fellow Christians of mine see the relationship between Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church as a model for the relationship they want to have between their respective governments and the Church. And yet, they know that this invasion is wrong. But for them to admit how wrong it is is being compromised by how they view the relationship between Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church.

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

March 7

To Joseph Mussomeli and his article analyzing the current situation of Russia's invasion of the Ukraine and Western Europe's response. It is an excellent article that merits reading. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There are so many points to agree with in the above article. The culpability of the West as well as the immoral actions taken by Russia are 2 such points. Also we should note the hypocritical practices of the US as well as the understandable perception of a threat and betrayal felt by Russia are more points that accepted and continually meditated on.

But blaming our actions on childishness is unhelpful not only because such labeling is imprecise, but it is also because it misses a common theme of the actions taken by the 2 adversaries in the ring which could actually be responded to.. The common theme that is driving both Putin and the NATO nations toward the precipice is the truth that the predominant flaw of both traditionalists and many old people is that they rely too much on the past to interpret and respond to the present.

That flaw is not just making more than a cameo appearance in this conflict. It permeates how Russia is governed by Putin and it is even more  evident here at home as we watch our fellow countrymen, who passionately embrace and pride themselves in American Capitalism and Individualism so that they are unable to accept the threats that climate change and the pandemic pose. Such Americans can't accept the realities of those threats because doing so would mean changing too much from how they did thing in the past. And we also saw this reluctance to change when many American whites fought vigorously to resist efforts of the Civil Rights Movement during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. In fact, the current systemic racism that still exists is evidence that that resistance is still alive.

We should also note that Russia has been a thug nation under Putin for a long while. But much of that thuggery is exhibited internally and it is increasingly reminiscent of that which existed under most of the former Soviet leaders And so after knowing how many nuclear apocalyptic bullets we dodged under the Cold War, one would think that we would no longer rely on Cold War thinking and strategies of trying to surround an adversarial  super power as much as possible in an attempt to control it.

And  Putin is relying too much on the past in seeing the degree of threat that exists if the Ukraine actually becomes a member of NATO. Such an occurrence, though very insensitive to Russia's  past in more than one way, does not pose the same threat that nations from the West posed to Russia in past centuries. Thus, the urgency seen in Russia's response to today's Ukraine is based on its over reliance on the past.

Certainly there is the opposite danger of relying too little on the past to interpret and respond to the present. And so a balance must be struck. But it seems that the driving force for both NATO and Putin cantering together  toward the precipice is an over reliance on the past, not a childishness, in how they are interpreting and responding to the present.

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

March 8

To Chris Gordon and his short article that gives an example of a anti-war Ukrainian being made to swallow his theoretical stand against war to the physical reality of the Russian invasion. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio website.

Of course, who will be a conditional fan of war if the world's reaction to the invasion leads to Russia resorting to using nuclear weapons.

Traditionalists of all ideologies and national identities along with old people share the same predominant fault: they rely too much on the past to understand and respond to the present. An ignored message from the past tells us our choice about continuing to rely on war to achieve our purposes (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?1 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.

If you note the number of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed on to the document (8 out of the 11 who signed the document) from which the above quote comes from, you will see that the Russell-Einstein Manifesto should be continually consulted before going off to war. After all, it is a document for the nuclear age. Also perhaps we should see war for what it does to its participants. For all too often, war makes us choose between military defeat and moral suicide. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blog For February 16, 2020

 Feb 8

To Chuck Chalberg and his article on CRT and what is dividing Americans. The comment is directed at only part of the article. The article appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

It seems to me that the logic employed by Chalberg in the above article is similar to the logic employed by Post Modernism. For whereas Post Modernism employed an outcome-based truth system to support its rejection of the metanarratives of both Pre Modernism, where the metanarrative is faith, and Modernism, where the metanarratives are science and reason, Chalberg rejects CRT because of what he believes the theory implies: America is a force for ill in the world. Such is assumed false by Chalberg. In addition, Chalberg's division of Americans, where they are divided between those who believe that America has been a force for good vs those who believe that America has been a force for ill illustrates a black-white worldview in that the position not considered is that America has been a force for both good and ill in the world.

It is understandable that American traditionalists, and religiously conservative Christian Americans have a strong tendency to be American traditionalists, would outrightly object to and oppose CRT. That is because such traditionalists have their significance closely bound to believing the best about their country. But how many of those conservative opponents to CRT understand racism from having experienced it as its victims.

It isn't that CRT is without errors. But it is that CRT attempts to describe racial oppression in America from the perspective of how many Blacks have  experienced that oppression. And yet, Chalberg's main concern here is that it describes America as a force for ill rather than for good.

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

Feb 11

To W. Robert Godfrey and his recorded adult class lesson why Christendom has been replaced. This lesson eventually focuses on the influence Darwin's thinking had as it helped undo Christendom. This recording was posted on the Abounding Grace Radio webste.

This series by Godfrey is meant to calm the uneasiness that many of my fellow religiously conservative American Christians have over  the changes in our society. Our nation and society no longer have a Christian outlook, a.k.a.,  embracing Christendom, on the world. But what we religiously conservative Christians have been oblivious too or have too easily excused is the suffering that Christendom caused. That suffering rivals the suffering caused by Christendom's replacements. Here, we would do well to listen to a Post Modern critique. For Post Modernism had rejected those who make exclusive truth claims because of history, because of the feeling of entitlement that has enabled some to more easily commit atrocities.

While Godfrey reduces what Darwin taught to chance and survival of the fittest and neglects Darwin's concern for justice in this lesson, he claims that Christianity teaches us to love and care for the needy and to act justly. But is that what history tells us what Christians do? In addition, some unbelieving friends of mine criticize Christians for needing the threat of a punishing God to motivate them to love and help others.

Godfrey has an out for Christendom's failures. But he doesn't extend that same out to the unbelieving thinkers and non-Christian ideologies for their failures. Again, Post Modernism seems to have observed that Christendom does not differ from other influences and ideologies in terms of the abuses and atrocities they have caused. Perhaps we should not relish the 'good old days' of Christendom nor should we consider it a mystery why it has been replaced.

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

Feb 12

To Chris Gordon and his article on the danger of drifting away from Jesus because of one's concern with worldly problems. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio website.

The above article needs balance for the sake of both Christians and unbelievers. When Dietrich Bonhoeffer visited a predominantly black church with a friend from seminary, he was deeply impressed with how the minister could talk about both the Gospel and worldly problems.  

Both worldly problems and the Gospel need to be preached on and thought about. Why? Well, in the church Bonhoeffer visited, our nation was in the middle of Jim Crow when whites could lynch blacks with impunity. And though the church that Bonhoeffer visited was not located in the Jim Crow region of the US, there was long-standing and harsh racial oppression of blacks everywhere, including the North. Racial oppression had to be preached on in that church because it was a very pressing problem for all of the members of the congregation. 

In white churches, thinking that the need to preach on or think about racial oppression was perceived to be not as great because most, if not all, of the people in those churches were not facing racial oppression.  But racial oppression needed to be preached about there just as much as in the black churches for a different reason. That reason being to warn the members of those churches not to contribute to or participate in the oppression of others.

We need the preaching of the Gospel and the preaching and thinking about worldly problems. That is because the Gospel is not there to provide an escape from worldly problems, but the strength to be faithful while living in the midst of those problems. For the oppressed, the Gospel is there to help them bear through the oppression. For the privileged, the Gospel is there to help them repent from contributing to or participating in the oppression of others as well as to extend help and mercy to the oppressed.

That last point is very significant to our sharing of the Gospel with unbelievers. for failure to understand how the Gospel  should help Christians as either the oppressed or the privileged has led some to discredit the Gospel and even persecute Christians for using the Gospel to escape the problems of the world. Consider the following quote from Vladimir Lenin:

Present-day society is wholly based on the exploitation of the vast masses of the working class by a tiny minority of the population, the class of the landowners and that of the capitalists. It is a slave society, since the “free” workers, who all their life work for the capitalists, are “entitled” only to such means of subsistence as are essential for the maintenance of slaves who produce profit, for the safeguarding and perpetuation of capitalist slavery...

Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze,   in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

Our our concern is not about choosing between preaching and thinking about the Gospel or preaching and thinking about worldly problems. Our concern here should be how to preach the Gospel so that, amongst other things, we can persevere through the problems of the world and hopefully bring others alongside with us.

Comments Which Conseratives Block From Their Blogs For February 9, 2022

Feb 4

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost article on how strictly an officer in the conservative Reformed and Presbyterian denominations hold to the standard confessions and catechisms such as the Westminster Standards. This appeared in Heidelblog.

From my conversations with people, there is wider disagreement with the Standards than are are outwardly expressed. Here we should note that despite the fact that no one is holding a literal gun to their heads to keep them silent. But how many non-literal guns can exist in this context?

However, the key issue that revolves around strict subscription to the Standards is left unmentioned in the article above. Mark 7 touches on that issue. At what point does a required subscription to the Standards make a group like the Pharisees from  that chapter in Mark? Jesus rightfully accused the Pharisees of substituting their traditions for the Scriptures. That occurred when they placed  their traditions on too high a pedestal. 

So, in essence, the Westminster Standards are to us what the traditions of the Pharisees were to them. And the more strict subscription to those standards is required, the more it reveals the pedestal on which we have placed those standards. And the question becomes for us, how much do we want to imitate the Pharisees in substituting something man-made for what was God-breathed? 

BTW, at least those who first defined Christian Fundamentalism in order to distinguish authentic Christianity from liberal theology stuck to a small, and rightfully selected,  number of  essentials.

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

The comment below is based on the 2nd audio clip on the webpage.

To W. Robert Godfrey and his recorded adult class lesson on how the abandoning of Christendom has some very negative marks on the world today. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio blog. 

Regarding Godfrey's lesson, the problem is that while Godfrey speaks to the recent disorientation of Christians to a world that is changing from revolving around Christendom to another view of reality. But the problem is that not all have experienced Christendom as something positive. The LGBT community has been harshly persecuted under Christendom. In America, Christendom promoted white supremacy. In the world, Christendom justified colonialism and imperialism. In Europe, there were religious wars and harsh religious persecutions. Under Christendom, women had to live as 2nd class citizens in America for a long time. And reversals to these abuses and atrocities are not being associated with the promotion of Christendom but with the abandoning of Christendom. And so while Christians are experiencing disorientation because of the changing of the guard in terms of how the world and life are interpreted, others are experiencing some levels of liberation with the end of Christendom.

And while Godfrey uses Stalin to show the negative implications of what Marx said, he neglected the details that show that Stalin was not a Marxist. And for all of Marx's faults and errors, what Godfrey attributes to Marx ain't necessarily so. Similarly, Hitler is not the logical result of abandoning Christendom especially when his anti-Semitism was, in large part, a result of centuries of European Christian anti-Semitism. After all, today we see a post Christian Europe that is far different in positive ways than what we saw when it was under Christendom.

Yes, a lot of today's thinking is horrible and threatening. But if we ignore the bad fruits that our religious ancestors produced through Christendom, we will not see  Christianity's, and by Christianity I am referring to Christians, contributions to today's bad fruit and thus we will have no credibility when challenging the current ways of the world.

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

The comment below is based on the 1st audio clip on the webpage..

Feb 5

To Chris Gordon and his adult Church lesson on sexuality in which he addresses homosexuality and gender identity. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio blog.

It's not that Chris Gordon's answers to the sexual orientation and gender identity issues of today are wrong,  it is that by sticking solely with the Heidelberg Catechism and the Scriptures, he has a turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to many of the struggles people are experiencing with these issues. He is basically saying that while he doesn't need to listen to the life experiences of people whose sexual orientation and gender identity are unbiblical, but they need to listen to him. And that serves somewhat of a microcosm of the Conservative Church's response to people today.

BTW, life tells us that there are more than 2 biological sexes today. Those who are born as intersex comprise another biological sex. And the problem there is that because of the percentage of people who are born that way, many of us conservative Christians want to think as if that does not happen. That is our preference until one knows someone or has a friend who is intersex and has listened to the problems they face.

In terms of gender identity, it seems that many in the LGBT community and many conservatives who feel anxious by the presence of those from that community share the same fault; they conflate biological sex with gender identity. While the former is a physical, biological reality, the other is a psycho-social reality. In addition, while we know somewhat of what nature says based on the outward evidence of one's biological sex, we don't know what nature is saying on the inside. And since the biological reality of our sex and our gender identity are not identical, we need to recognize the complexity of the issue of one's gender identity. Here it might be useful to study the Native American tribes that recognized up to 5 genders, though those gender identities are not necessarily parallel to what we see in our culture today, and they honored those who held to a different gender identity than what they were born with as people whose spirit conquered their flesh. BTW, the triumph of the Spirit over the flesh is something we celebrate from a different perspective.

In addition, what many people are referring to when they speak of liberation today is the liberation from society's attempts to marginalize them for their differences. And American Christianity, in contrast to how Rosaria Butterfield's pastor friend treated her, has played a prominent role in promoting harsh attempts at marginalizing people from the LGBT community by society.

As for sexual orientation, here we should note the prevalence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. So what is nature telling us about homosexuality, and for many, their sexual preferences?

Finally, we should note that when Paul condemns homosexuality in Romans 1, he follows that up with the stern warning not to judge others in Romans 2. Why? It is because we believers in God can identify with those sinning unbelievers from Romans 1 because of our own sins. And so we should be describing this issues not as observers who are reluctantly and from a distance viewing  horrible acts of some alien species, but as fellow sinners. We should also note that we have multiple identities. We have a new identity in Christ, but we still have an identity with the tax collector from the parable of the 2 men praying. We can easily identify with that tax collector unless, of course, we prefer to find our identity with the Pharisee from that same parable.

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

Feb 5

To R. Scott Clark and Brad Isabell for Clark's quoting of Isabell's article on the riff between the Side B Movement and the traditionalists in the PCA over church participation by those Christians in the Side B Movement. Clark quotes part of Isabell's article in his blogpost on Heidelblog.

Isabell's full article can be found at:

   https://www.reformation21.org/blog/a-word-on-narratives

I've commented on this before here. It seems that there are errors made by both sides on the issue of whether being SSA but celibate disqualifies a person fr0m serving as.a church officer. Overtures #23 and #37 certainly introduce a hierarchy between heterosexuals and homosexuals who don't act on unbiblical desires. And a contributing motivation for that hierarchy could be homophobia for sure. But that's could be and so assuming support for those overtures implies homophobia is wrong and an overreaction.

At the same time, one must understand the historical context for such an accusation. There are people who are emerging from centuries of societal marginalization of homosexuals. Defensiveness and a hyper level of oversensitivity are normal reactions to long standing social injustices and persecution. And the normality of those reactions is often hidden when people are so wrapped up in their theology that they forget what it means to be a person. After all, theology is not substitute for experience; rather, it is to provide an important aid in how we structure and interpret our experiences. Unfortunately, some believe otherwise.

Instead of a peaceful and Biblical resolution to the debate, there will be nothing more than continued strife, the demonization of others,  and self-righteous posturing by those on both sides unless both sides realize their own errors and the unbiblical way in which they are reacting to others.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 6, 2021

 Sept 28

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that includes a video from Project Veritas on one of the pharmaceutical companies involved with the production of a Covid vaccine. This appeared in Heidelblog.

If we are concerned about the commandment prohibiting the bearing of false witness in this age of the internet, it is necessary for us to do our best to vet our sources before spreading information from them. Below is a report on Project Veritas and it includes a factual reporting rating.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/

That in a capitalist economy we would see some exploitation should not be used to discredit vaccines that have proven effective in preventing serious complications from the Covid infection if not preventing the infection itself. Nor should it be used to spread conspiracy theories, the latter of which puts one in danger of violating the commandment prohibiting bearing false witness. And we should note that what the Project Veritas video is showing the opinions of some people. So what are Clark's intentions here with this particular post and his previous post from the Rome Covid Summit where at least some of the initial signees to the statement from that summit were actively promoting the use of Ivermectin to prevent or treat Covid-19?

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

Oct 2

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote from and article by Chris Gordon about Christians not having to worry about the current Cultural Revolution here in America. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Chris Gordon's article cited by Clark:

https://agradio.org/the-christian-response-in-revolutionary-times

What some fellow Christians have called liberties are more correctly called privileges. A simple equation distinguishes liberties from privileges: Liberty - Equality = Privilege.  Just as for most, if not all, of America's history, oppression has allowed whites to enjoy privileges that they have denied blacks from having, so too have we Christians enjoyed religious privileges that we have denied to others. One past example of Christian privilege denied to others can be seen our Blue Laws from the past.

More recent examples revolved around sexual practices and relationships. Those who, with or without religious backing, believed that homosexuality was morally ok were denied practicing that belief by the biblical prohibition against it. Even Reformed 2Kers would use natural law as a reason to prohibit same-sex sexual practices and marital relationships even though it is their theology, not the Scriptures, that demand that today's governments ban such practices.

The tipping point for recognizing the 'Cultural Revolution'  (a.k.a., the losing of the Culture War) was the Obergefell decision. Since then, more and more court decisions have mandated that Christian businesses fully treat those from the LGBT community as equals in society.

So are we being criticized and even persecuted by unbelievers here for  having different moral beliefs about homosexuality than they do or are we getting flack for wanting to discriminate against those in the LGBT community. IMO, both reasons explain why we might be suffering cultural criticism--or what some call 'persecution.' The problem is that we religiously conservative Christians have been so control oriented that we cannot tell the difference between criticism from persecution as well as being opposed because of our religious beliefs from resistance to our attempts to control some with whom we disagree. From what I've seen and read, we are getting more resistance for trying to maintain control over others than for merely holding to the beliefs we have historically had.

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

Oct 4

To R. Scott Clark and Jonathan Haidt for Clark's blogpost citation of Haidt's article on the problems of monomania. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Haidt's article can be found at

https://www.persuasion.community/p/haidt-monomania-is-illiberal-and

Monomania involves reductionism. With reductionism is the elimination of any other concerns, issues, evidence and so on that lies outside the target  issue. The result is a black-white view.

But what is curious here regarding Haidt's hypothetical situation that he says follows Kendi's words is whether Kendi would agree that the implication that Haidt exists. For if he doesn't then what do we make of above citation of Haidt?

Haidt is correctly in favor of our existing groups  being non-polarizing and being able to talk and collaborate with each other. He correctly sees the danger of the current polarization trend. At the same time, when he quoted Kendi, can he look beyond the overstatements and any reductionism employe to see what is really being said?

It seems to me that what people like Kendi are trying to make us aware of is that white America has never really come to grips with the extent that racism has been a part of America and has thus affected many who are from minority races. For what is the first reaction that many white Americans have when the subject of racism is discussed? Isn't there a strong tendency for their first concern to be whether they are being called a racist? But when the subject of racism is brought up among Blacks, isn't the first thought about how they have experienced racism?

And so  while some Blacks, like Kendi, will unintentionally overstate things and use reductionism to get us to listen, isn't the message they are trying to tell us is that the effects of racism on those from minority races have caused greater harm than we could possibly have imagined. However, that message will not be readily listened to because such a message brings to the forefront the conflict of interest that many of us whites experience when listening to or reading about racism. On the one hand, we want to think of ourselves as good people. But such a notion is sharply contradicted by how our practice of or unconscious support for racism.

It seems odd to me that Haidt can't see past his concern for the negative effects for polarizing groups and messages and monomaniacs to put Kendi's words into context rather than use them for an example of a concern he wants to express.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 24, 2019

July 17

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that quotes a portion of a Chris Gordon article that compares the use of the rainbow by the LGBT community with that used by God after God delivered Noah from the flood. In that article, Gordon seems to lament over the legalization of same-sex marriage as well as the rejection of God’s Word shown in their sexual preferences. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Chris Gordon’s article:  https://www.agradio.org/what-the-gay-marriage-movement-should-know-about-gods-rainbow.html

The writer of the article, Chris Gordon, talks about the Christian weeping over how people are rejecting what God has said about marriage in the last part of his article. But is there only one kind of sin that Christians should weep over here?

Shouldn't Christians also weep over any society that seeks to punish the LGBT community because of their sexual sins? After all, we American Christians would easily weep over the denial of religious freedom for those who worship false gods. Why should we not also weep when those in the LGBT community are punished by society rather than treated as equals. Wanting the LGBT community to be treated as equals in society is not more an endorsement of their sexual sins than wanting those who follow other religions to be treated equal in society an endorsement of their false gods.

Yes, we Christians need to share the Gospel and what God says about human sexuality with the LGBT community. And we need to do that in love. But we are not showing love when we speak kindly to them while demanding that society must marginalize them.



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

July 23

To Joe Carter and the video he posted in a blogpost that talks of the emerging crisis from our ever growing national deficit and debt. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The bias of the video presentation is beyond being disingenuous. Claiming that self-funded programs like Social Security and Medicare contribute to the debt is lying. The only way that Social Security contributes to the debt is for the fund to demand that the federal gov't pay back what it has borrowed from the fund.

In addition, we might want to note that defense spending in spread through several budgets including the DOD  budget, Treasury budget, and the DOE and has been approaching or exceeding $1 trillion for a while. We should also note that there are corporations that receive more in gov't subsidies than they pay in federal taxes and those that pay no taxes at all. We could also include how the pharmaceutical industry exploits Medicare spending. And we could go on.

We could raise taxes on corporations but we are threatened with the loss of jobs when that option is considered. Why? Because we live in a shareholder economy where business's primary interest is to feed the greed of the shareholders. Traditionally speaking, the definition for the term 'stakeholder' was that all who are impacted by a business serve as stakeholders for that business. But today's working definition of the the term 'stakeholder' has become synonymous with the word 'shareholder.' It isn't that some businesses don't recognize other stakeholders in addition to shareholders. It is that the predominant business ethic is to conflate the definitions of the two words. And such an ethic helps drive the every growing wealth disparity and shifting tax burden that exist in our nation.

What really drives our deficit today is that too many corporations see the public fund as something to receive from than to give to. And so whether it is through the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, pharmaceutical companies exploiting medicare, and so on, too many big corporations are acting as parasites until there is nothing left to gain. And we might want to inform those who want to cut social safety nets that austerity programs and an ever growing wealth disparity in a nation hinders economic growth. That is according to the IMF.