How A Couple Of Errors Can Sabotage Several Truths

Chris Hedges (click here for a bio) has recently written an article for Truthdig where he attempts to warn us of the dangers of Christian Fascism that he sees as being a significant movement in the Trump Administration. It isn't that we have reached a state of Christian Fascism now, it is that such is the goal of quite a few in that Administration and many of his supporters(click here for the article).

He blames this movement toward Christian Fascism on liberal Christianity for its tepid response to those religiously conservative Christians who support Trump.  By tepid he means any response that falls short of denouncing those Christians as heretics. They are heretics, according to Hedges, because they have sacrificed the core message of the Gospel, which, according to Hedges, is 'concern for the poor and oppressed,' for  promises of 'material wealth and power.'

At this point we need to stop because that is Hedges's first error. According to liberal Christianity, Hedges is correct. But liberal Christianity denies God's supernatural redemptive intervention in the world as recorded in the Scriptures and culminating with Jesus Christ who died for our sins and rose again from the dead. Because of that supernatural redemptive intervention, the core of the Gospel is God reconciling His people to Himself.

It isn't that concern for the poor and oppressed has been displaced by the Christian Gospel. Jesus instructs us to give to those who cannot give back because we are to lay up treasures in heaven. In addition, giving to the poor and oppressed is a reflection of how God has redemptively treated us. But concern for the poor and oppressed is the core of the liberal gospel because they do not believe in God having supernaturally redeemed His people.

Because of this error in defining the Gospel, Hedges has sabotaged his words from reaching the people who need to hear them the most: the religiously conservative Christians who support Trump. That is because of the authoritarianism in those believers. Hedges's error has totally discredited what else he has to say regardless of how true it is. What else does he say? He describes many of the religiously conservative Christians who follow Trump. He states that:

• they believe that God has used the white race as His agents
• they believe that imperialism by His agents partially cleansed the world of 'infidels' and evil
• they believe that God used Capitalism to bless the faithful
• they believe that God's use of Capitalism made it free from abusing others
• they conflated American nationalism and their faith
• and their narcissistic 'mega-pastors' became rich and ruled over their followers as cult leaders by using heresies

In addition,  he states that Trump is a reflection of his religious base. And his descriptions of both include a belief in 'white supremacy,'  having 'unfettered greed,' and a longing for violence.

For each of those descriptions listed above, there is at least a significant amount of truth. And yet those descriptions will never have a chance to be considered by those who need to hear them the most--the members of Trump religiously conservative Christian base.

The rest of the article speaks about the Christian fascism being ushered in by Trump's Administration. That is the second error in Hedges's article. It is not as critical an error as the first one. But it can be credibly denied by those Hedges regards as guilty.

I, myself, think Hedges goes to far in describing what is occurring as the beginning of Christian Fascism. It isn't that he is totally wrong, he just uses the wrong description when he calls it 'fascism.' It isn't that some religiously conservative Christians are not seeking places of significant control in order to expand the rule of their Christianity, they are. It is that I view what Hedges describes signs of a coming Christian fascism as just bones tossed to the religiously conservative Christian community to keep them in the fold. In other words, these religiously conservative Christian followers of Trump are being played. That is because, as usual, money rules the government, not people or their beliefs.

Yes, we could be heading toward a fascism. But what we are heading toward is not a Christian Fascism, but the kind of autocratic strongman rule that we see in Russia today. Basically, Russia is our future. And Russia does not have an Orthodox Christian Fascism exerting power over the country despite the close ties between the Orthodox Church and Putin's government. 


 

With Apologies To Chris Hedges

A while back, Hedges wrote a book called Christian Fascism. I read the book and heard what he had to say and dismissed it for the most part.  From talking to my religiously conservative Christian friends, I knew that many of my fellow Christians did want some more control over things than what existed, but not to the extent that Hedges saw.

But after reading William Barr's address to the Law School at Notre Dame (click here for the speech), I'm afraid that I was more wrong than  Hedges was concerning the desired future of many a religiously conservative Christian in America.

William Barr is, of course the current Attorney General in the US because of the Trump Administration. It appears that he is an old-school, conservative Catholic. And with that comes a good helping of authoritarianism.  Basically, Barr's address says that our nation was designed to be run and populated by Christians like himself and that all other participants pose a threat to the nation--that is especially true if those participants are secular and progressive. His basic theme is that our Founding Fathers proposed a system of limited government that depended on the self-control of its people. And nothing says self-control like Barr's kind of conservative Catholicism. Of course he doesn't seem to have a problem with conservative Protestants either.

To prove that this nation was designed for the religious likes of him, in general that is, he quotes Madison from his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, a work that opposed a proposed piece of legislation where taxpayer money would be used to support the churches in the name of promoting 'public morality' (click here). But that doesn't stop Barr from quoting from that work to suggest the opposite. For Barr states the following (click here for the source) :

religious liberty as a "rights toward men" but "a duty towards the Creator" and a "duty...precedent both in order and time and degree of obligation to the claims of Civil Society."

 Now Barr later claims that our nation was built on the Judeo-Christian moral standards because our Founders were Christians.

Here we should note that I don't believe the source of the Judeo part of those moral standards were well received in the nation at that time. First, there was just a handful of Jews in 17th century America and when we get to the 18th century, some states had passed laws that prohibited Jews from voting. There was other evidence of anti-Semitism back then.

Back at the ranch, according to Barr these moral standards enabled Americans with the necessary self-control that would facilitate a working limited government. Thus, the Judeo-Christian foundation of our nation is a necessary part of what keeps America free though Barr states that under the general label of religion.

Barr goes on to say that the presence of our social is ills is due not just to the weakening of those standards in society, but to a 'comprehensive effort to drive it from the public square.'

Barr continues to emphasize the importance of passing down our religious heritage to our children but that there are 3 'fronts' in which 'secularists' are trying to infringe on the transference of our traditional religious morals. Those fronts consist of:

1. changing what is taught to our children in school
2. plans to keep public funds from supporting our religious schools
3. forcing religious schools to follow a 'secular orthodoxy'

 To support his first point, he cited New Jersey's law requiring public schools to use a 'LGBT curriculum' that oppose religious teaching. He noted that similar laws were passed elsewhere.

To support his second point he cited a Montana tax credit system that supported non-religious private schools that was later cancelled when some parents wanted to use that system to send their kids to nondenominational Christian school.

To support his third point, Barr cited a lawsuit against the Archbishop of Indianapolis because he barred teachers who were in same-sex marriages from teaching in his Catholic schools.

All of that and some other things paints a 'disturbing picture' for Barr because he sees the Judeo-Christian tradition, especially the Church part of that tradition, as America's Obi-wan Kenobi for restoring traditional morals back to America. Thus Barr said the following:

I think we should all we can to promote and support authentic Catholic education at all levels.

and

We must be vigilant to resist the forces of secularization to drive religious viewpoints from the public square and to impinge upon the free exercise of our faith.

Thus we can cite Barr as both being ignorant of the views about religion in the public square as advanced by James Madison, the person he fondly quoted as well as the traditional problem of how the religious liberty of some has, for centuries, been used to infringe on the civil liberties of others.

Again, we should note that Madison wrote what Barr quoted from to oppose using of taxpayer money to support the churches. In the same work that Barr quoted from, Madison said the following:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Thus Madison saw no difference between exclusively promoting a general religion from promoting a given denomination. So how would Madison then react to Barr's speech that seeks to exclusively promote Judeo-Christian moral traditions and Christianity in general? Madison's quote more explicitly applies to Barr's implied support for state money being used to support Christian education.

As for the other fronts that Barr pointed out, we should note that America has a long history of religiously based intolerance being exercised against different groups. Again, Jews were discriminated against in voting rights in certain states during America's infancy as a nation. Often, American Christians used their faith and the Scriptures to defend segregation and white supremacy. Recent resolutions in both the SBC and PCA denominations document that claim. And of course we need to include the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans in the land which was blessed by Christian beliefs. Also, for centuries, homosexuals were considered to be criminals by many and some were incarcerated and relief from that did not come until a few decades ago. That was due to church  influence on our moral standards.

When it comes to the Christian religion being used to prosecute those who were different, Barr is either ignorant or he sees it as acceptable. If the latter is true, then Barr forgets liberty or freedom mathematics that says: 

Liberty - Equality = Privilege.

In the meantime, what self restraints were being exercised by the wealthy in our nation? After all, our nation's laws, according to Barr, assumed that all were to use their religious values to control themselves so that there would be no need for our nation to increase the size of its government. But doesn't our nation have a rich heritage of those with wealth exploiting labor from slavery to the use of foreign workers to the use of prison labor to the use of violence against workers seeking justice in terms of pay and working conditions?

Thus Barr's speech seems to lack adequate awareness of both the sentiments of Madison, whom he quoted, as well as the history of  how what he calls 'religious liberty' being used to oppress those who were different. And yet, it is those good old days that Barr seeks to reestablish in America.

Yes, America could use a moral infusion to help it recover from what ails it. But Barr's perspective of what is needed there lacks awareness of the past and depth for our needs in both the present and future.

But something else should be said. To the extent that a large enough number of religiously conservative Christians share Barr's views, then we could say that Hedges was right considering the intent of some and the possibility that we could see a Christian fascism established in America. In fact we might even say that the conservative Christian support for Trump is at least partially based on that hope when he appoints people like William Barr to such a high government position.

 

Where We Are Now

Several people have written about what causes the death of a republic in general, and our republic specifically. More than a few years ago, historian Chalmers Johnson associated the pursuit of empire with the death of a republic. He noted how with Roman Empire, the pursuit and maintenance of its empire costed Rome its Republic. He then pointed out the Great Britain decided to forego the keeping of its empire in order to hold on to its Republic. He then brought up the question of what America will choose seeing that it too has an empire.

Chris Hedges just wrote an article about the death of a republic (click here for the article). He was referring to the U.S. and he listed the signs that indicate our republic's demise. He attributes that death to ambitious men who stealthily seize power by using democratic process and provide the illusion that those processes still work. While politicians work to provide the facade of a republic, Hedges sees corporations that have bought control of the government as the main culprit.

Paul Krugman also just wrote an article on how republics die (click here for the article). Krugman sees career politicians as being the ones who are attacking our republic. Unlike Hedges, he does not believe that our republic is dead. However, he does not think that, our republic is getting better and thus is ready to go for a walk.

Who is right about the identity of those who are destroying the Republic? My guess is that all three are partially correct. The mistake for each of them is that the did not consider that other parties are also guilty with the ones they've identified.

But perhaps there is one more conspirator who is working to end our republic. That conspirator is us, the American people. How can the rest of us be guilty too? Think about it. We don't vote on issues that determine the health of our republic; we vote on financial issues.  We vote for those who will provide jobs and promise new prosperity. We vote for those who promise not to interfere with our pursuit of happiness especially when that pursuit includes accumulating as much wealth as possible.

Martin Luther King Jr. described today's society perfectly when speaking out against the Vietnam War in 1967. That is right; in 1967, he described the American society of 2017. How is that possible? Could he look into the future to see what we would become? No he didn't. Rather, we have not changed from how he described American society in 1967. How did he describe us? He said the following (click here for source):

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

King's comment cuts across the Marxist-Capitalist divide--and I say that as a person who leans toward Marxism. For both systems promise some sort of utopia based on materialism. And for as long as we pursue a materialistic utopia, we will condemn ourselves to suffer the evils that King warned against. For as long as we count gadgets, profits, and property rights as being more important than people, we will suffer from racism, materialism, and militarism. Why? Because for as long as things are more important than people, we will compete for the obtaining and securing of these things in groups. And our group participation in that competition lends itself to tribalism. And tribalism blinds us from valuing others and seeing the benefits of cooperation and collaboration. We might also add what the Scriptures say about the love of money (click here for the reference).

The election of Trump and how people voted showed that too many of us put a higher priority on things than people. That is most evident in the case of Trump voters as he promised to bring back American prosperity to those who lost their portion of it. Those Trump supporters did not question Trump's promises or care to ask about the costs of Trump's proposals. For such questions could wake them up from their daydreaming about the future. So they focused solely on the return of some glorious past. And though Hillary offered more fringe benefits to a wider audience than Trump, she and many of her fellow Democrats had been working to ensure that people with wealth would be the primary beneficiaries of their policies. After all, that what Obamacare was all about.

In essence, Chalmers, Hedges, and Krugman are all correct regarding the identity of the ones who is killing our republic. They are all correct but not exclusively so. Those who pursue empires, those who have significant wealth but never have enough, and career politicians are all seeking to finish off our republic. And while we are more concerned with things than with people, then we have joined them as being enemies of any republic because we have shown ourselves to be no different than those who continually pursue more wealth and power. For as long as we vote for those who care more about prosperity than about those who are less fortunate, we show ourselves to be thing-oriented. And for as long as we vote for those who for those who care more about generating more wealth than about how we can share and work with each other, we plead guilty to being thing-oriented. And for as long as we are thing-oriented, not only will we suffer the fate described by King, we will be handing over the keys of our republic to those who promise prosperity for us but deliver wealth and power for only chosen few.

On Having Hope And Being Hopeless

The Scriptures assure Christians that they have a living hope. That hope is Jesus who will return. And in this sense, everybody who belongs to Christ should be hopeful about the future--the distant future that is.

And in addition to that hope in the distant future is an assurance that God's sovereignty does limit the suffering we can experience today and in the near future. These two facts must be pillars in the lives of all who trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

But if we care about the world in the way that God loves the world,  then why is the state of this world hopeless and getting worse? There are two reasons for this hopelessness. First, most with wealth and power are insane. John Lennon made this point about our world leaders. If Lennon was alive today, he could most certain say this about both Obama and Putin as they flirt with conflict while being armed with thousands of nuclear weapons.

Those whose wealth is derived from financial conquest and who care not for the welfare of the victims of that conquest should be put into John Lennon's insane leaders category. This is Chris Hedges' point in talking about the cult of the self.



How can one come to any other conclusion when what drove the world into the most devastating and inhumane war in history is being practiced today? This obsession with conquest and dominance in a world, even though today's conquests are mostly financial, where interdependence and an ever advancing and adulterous technology makes all of us more vulnerable shows us to be, as the Scriptures say, like "a dog that returns to its vomit." (see Proverbs 26:11). From this we can easily say that 'never again' was never learned, as was reported by a previous blogpost on this blog (click here).

And though we might not be one of those who search for such economic conquests, we are complicit with such takeovers when we do not object but prefer to ride on the financial coattails of those who seek to conquer. These financial coattails anesthetize us so that we feel neither the pain of others as they lose out nor the destruction of the environment stemming from our exploitation and abuse of the earth and its resources.

For Conservative Christians, part of our complicity is due to the failure of our churches' leadership to properly engage culture. For when it comes to social justice issues, the range of reactions from Conservative Christians is to either not engage or to engage with the intent of advancing a strict Christian agenda.  Their involvement is measured by the charts below with the social justice grid chart being a modification of a new model introduced during Friday's blogpost review of Tim Keller's Center Church model (click here).

Social Justice Grid

Personal Morality Grid

The horizontal axis represents the degree to which a group want society to either be libertarian or controlling through the use of law. So what the two charts together illustrate is this, much of the Conservative Church, the Two Kingdoms and the Transformationists to be specific, invest more in trying to get society to restrict the personal moral behavior of individuals than they do in getting society to control groups or even itself when it comes to social justice issues. This is shown by how both the Two Kingdoms and Transformationists adherents are located to the right on the Personal Morality Grid compared to their positions on the Social Justice Grid. In last Friday's chart, which was named the Social Gospel Grid, the Transformationists were located solely in the second quadrant. But as I thought about it, certain parties in the Transformationist group or model as Keller calls it, do not always push society to legally require the just treatment of others. Instead, they often want society to take a more libertarian approach to social justice issues. Social justice issues could include employees being paid a living wage and having the right to belong to a union, or that everybody has access to affordable healthcare and housing. Social justice issues could also include protection of the environment. 

Part of this overall approach by the Transformationists is due to conservative political values and their apathy or antagonism toward social justice issues. And even where conservative political values do not come into play, there is a tendency to have some kind of objection to legally demanding that people be treated justly or that the environment be protected. Thus there is a mixed record in demanding justice by Transformationists.

In addition, some use the Bible to justify not being involved in the culture and social justice issues. I Timothy 2:2 is often used to justify Christians living "quiet lives" where we does not get involved in the bigger matters of the world. Those who interpret passages like I Timothy 2:2 this way are forgetting the changes in the historical context between when Paul wrote I Timothy and today. Unlike Paul's time, because of the Christianity's influence on Western Civilization, Christianity can be easily associated with some of the injustices practiced in our part of the world. Thus, it becomes mandatory for Christians, not just for the sake of having compassion on others, to be involved at least for the reputation of the Gospel.

The two charts together show that if you are going to sin as an individual, you'll hear about it from most Conservative Christians. But if you participate in the committing of group sins, you will enjoy quite a bit of impunity from Conservative righteous indignation. And with this being true on domestic social issues, how much more true is it with foreign issues such as with the use of sweatshop labor, the use of trade agreements that benefit our businesses while destroying the ability of some countries to feed themselves, or imperial foreign policies and the use of our military in interventions and drone warfare? For those Transformationists who are not prevented by conservative politics to care about these issues, one has to ask, where is your presence on the streets? Do you know that it is strongly desired by those who are both religious and Leftists because it helps confirm part of what they believe Christianity is suppose to be about?

Of course, demanding social justice has a price. It offends many, though not all, who have wealth and power. And such offenses could cost the Conservative Church members and money. In addition, because of an unthinking adherence to the Conservative label, some Conservative Christians have trouble distinguishing religious and political Conservatism so that an attack on one seems like an attack on both. The cost of demanding social justice for such conservatives can mean a very tearing and painful remaking of oneself--something I experienced when I became a political leftist.

So it is easier for the Conservative Church to stress the future hope we have because of our faith in Jesus because such provides an escape from having to make certain choices. The tragedy here is that our real hope is used to escape reality rather than to give one strength to face a present but temporary reality. And this desire to escape reality is based on combining a consumer culture to faith where one is more willing to live in comfort rather than bear the fruit of the Spirit in the face of injustice.

How tragically ironic it is that the hope of the world has become a reason for hopelessness in today's perilous times.

Does The Left Have More To Say Against Pornography Than The Right

The Bible is replete with stories of people who are more than willing to become sociopaths for the sake of power or prosperity. In Genesis 19:1-10 and Judges 19:12-29, wicked men surround the house where visitors were staying and demand that the owner give up the visitors so the evil townsmen could have sex with them. As Carl Trueman points out about the Judges 19 passage, the real issue was power rather than sex (click here for the talk). For the men of the town wanted to show the visitors and their host who was boss. 

In Acts 16:16-19, Paul casts a spirit out of a slave girl. This caused an uproar because the girl's owners made money off of her misery as the spirit that possessed her also enabled her to tell the future. When her owners discovered that they could no longer profit from her predictions, they dragged Paul and Silas before the authorities to be imprisoned and punished. Here, power didn't turn the hearts of the girl's owners into stone, it was the love of money and prosperity that did.

The purpose of this post is to compare the arguments against pornography made by a couple of people on the Left with those made by a couple of people on the Right. Because of old stereotypes, some conservatives are surprised that there are Leftists who oppose what conservatives consider to be sexual sins. On the other hand, it is unfortunate that too many liberals and leftists consider conservative opposition to pornography to be prudish and the result of too much inhibition. We will find that those from both the Left and the Right can provide useful information and reasons for abstaining from consuming pornography. And we need this information because those who direct and produce these films and those who crave watching them are beginning to become like the heartless people described in the Scriptures cited above. For as Robert Jensen, one of the people being reviewed here, wrote that pornography illustrates what the end of the world looks like because it leads people to abandon having a caring identification with others and a world without that kind of care has no hope. 

The people we are comparing are Chris Hedges, Robert Jensen, William Shishko, and Carl Trueman. And though I don't have enough material from any of these writers to guarantee that neither mistakes will be avoided nor people underrepresented, we can all benefit from the information provided.

The main source in understanding Hedge's view of pornography can be found in Chapter 2 his book, Empire Of Illusion: The End Of Literacy And The Triumph Of Spectacle. He calls this chapter "Illusion Of Love." A helpful source in understanding Robert Jensen's view of pornography can be found in his book, Getting Off: Pornography And The End Of Masculinity. Since I did not have access to his book, I used various YouTube videos as well as internet articles. Because of the explicit references made in some articles and videos, there are only a couple of links that I feel I can share on this blog. But I would highly encourage anyone who can tolerate numerable explicit sexual references to look up  what Hedges and Jensen have written and said about pornography. The references that I can share here include this interview with Robert Jensen and this interview with Chris Hedges. Btw, there is a link to the same interviews in the Audio-Visual Library page of this blog

My sources for Trueman and Shishko will only consist of the few internet articles I could find. Thus, I will try to be careful regarding any conclusions I make about their views but note that my caution will not prevent mistakes. And please realize that any conclusions I do make are from the materials available to me.  The internet articles written by Trueman consist of: The Problem With Porn Is The Problem With Culture, Playboy Is In Trouble -- But It's Not Good News, and Pornography: The New Normal. The internet article written by William Shishko is called, Pastor To Pastor: The Perils Of Pornography.

One of the basic differences in the views of the people we are comparing here can be seen in the methodologies used to study the subject. For the most part, Hedges and Jensen, approached pornography as investigative journalists. Thus, they gain most of their information from interviews, critical observations of porn, and attending adult film conventions. Their first focus is on the performers who help produce pornography. Here, they zero in on the women filmed while performing sexual acts, but Hedges will also tells us a little about the male performers. However, Jensen, in particular, will also talk extensively about the consumers of porn. He includes himself as a former consumer. 

In contrast to them, Trueman and Shishko approach the subject as ministers and theologians. Trueman also approaches the subject as a cultural critic. As ministers, Trueman and Shishko admonish all in the audience to abstain from all pornography for the sake of one's own soul. Thus, their concern will focus on a subset of actual or potential consumers of pornography. In addition, Trueman tries to identify some of the cultural factors that contribute to the making and demand for pornography.

There are two kinds of motivation we can use to resist the temptation to enjoy pornography. These different motivations coincide with what was written in the recent post, Are You An Innie Or Outie Christian. That is we have external reasons for abstaining from watching pornography and internal reasons. 

An  external reason would be to refuse to look at porn because of how some, who produce it, suffer as a result. The women performers involved suffer multiple personal and physical traumas in the making of the films. Personal traumas include verbal and emotional abuse as well as the emotional impact of having so many partners. Many of these women suffer from PTSD, as Hedges testifies, and the traumas and overwhelming stress provoke the need for the women performers to take drugs and alcohol to numb and manage the full impact of their sexual activities. Because of the severity of the PTSD and the coping through drug use suffered by the women performers, Hedges more than appropriately calls pornography "necrophilia."  The physical traumas suffered by these women include tears in intimate areas which require surgical repair, bruises from being hit, the physical trauma from the number of partners involved, and the contraction of diseases some of which have no cure. 

Thus, an external reason for not consuming porn is to refrain from contributing to the humiliation, degradation, and abuse of the women performers. And this remains an external reason for as long as we refuse to look at pornography simply because of the concern we have for these women. For those progressives who are tempted to look at porn, Chris Hedges has this challenge. He asks, how can it be so wrong to abuse women in foreign sweatshops but it can be ok when that abuse comes from the sex exploitation industry in America?

Hedges compares the pictures from Abu Graib with what can be seen in pornography. And lest we think that only the women performers in porn are affected, the verbal, physical, and sexual abuse these performers must suffer while being filmed along with the pervasive theme of male dominance and female humiliation and degradation are, according to Jensen, designed to be associated with eroticism by the producers of porn. Thus, the present and future female partners of porn consumers can also suffer from the messages preached by pornographic films. 

In terms of providing external reasons for not watching porn, Hedges and Jensen prove to be invaluable sources. With regard to the welfare of the performers, neither Trueman nor Shishko help us understand the suffering and injustices that are endured in making such films. One of the reasons for this is that the amount and kind of information coming from Hedges and Jensen is the kind that comes from practicing journalism rather than theology. From this, we must not conclude that neither Trueman nor Shishko are naive regarding the exploitation involved in making these films. Trueman says that women are exploited in pornography. But in his and Shishko's writings used for this post, this is not seem to be an important issue.

However, there is an external reason for men not watch pornography from the Conservative Christian side. That external reason is located in the wives of the would be consumers. But in briefly mentioning this, it is evident that for Trueman and Shishko, the vast majority of reasons for not viewing pornography are internal reasons according to the material reviewed. That is the key question asked by a person considering watching pornography is, how does it affect me? How does it affect my innocence before others and before God? How does it affect my relationships with the spouse and the family? This last question is a different question than asking how would the spouse and family be hurt if I watch pornography. 

Both Jensen and Shishko provide more than adequate internal reasons for why we should not sneak a peak at pornography. For Jensen, the internal reasons revolve around whether pornography fed expectations can prevent one from finding sexual satisfaction as well as will such expectations cause one to fall into the "masculinity trap." According to Jensen, the "masculinity trap" is a never ending and never succeeding real life game of trying to prove that one is man enough. 

For Shishko, it is our eternal standing before God that is the issue. We must remain pure and unstained if we are to join God forever. For the Scriptures are clear in asserting that the sexually immoral will not enter the Kingdom of God. And here Shishko gives a stern warning because he knows, just as Jensen does, that viewing pornography can be enslaving and it can be that way to anyone. Here, both Shishko and Jensen share their past and present struggles with pornography.  And this honesty by both of these men is helpful because none of us are invulnerable to the allurement that pornography calls with.  

Neither Trueman nor Shishko are naive about how tempting pornography can be to ministers. In the video referenced at the beginning of this post, Trueman stresses the fact that the crowd that asked the host to bring out his visitor so they could rape him were Israelites, were the people of God. That, according to Trueman, this section of Judges gives an illustration of how low God's people can go. In addition, Trueman calls pornography viewed on the internet as today's top pastoral problem. 

Shishko provides tips for battling the urge to look at pornography. They can be summed up by saying don't be arrogant, use whatever tools you can to keep yourself pure so you can have an enjoyable temporal and eternal future.

We should note that there is common ground between the secular approaches of Hedges and Jensen and the Christian approaches of Trueman and Shishko. This is especially apparent when we compare Trueman with Jensen. Both are disturbed by today's market for porn and what that says about us. Both see in porn a constant, unfortunate changing in what is private and what is public. Both see the never ending search for change and for something new in porn.

However, there is a factor that both makes them different and similar at the same time. For Jensen, the Feminist critique of porn that says it is about male domination rather than sex carries much weight. Hence, Jensen identifies the existence of our patriarchal society as contributing to the making and use of porn. Trueman embraces a Biblical patriarchal approach only emphasizing that male headship should use its strength and position to sacrifice for and protect women rather than to dominate them. Though Jensen would heartily agree with Trueman about how men should use their strength to show compassion, Jensen argues that compassionate strength is a human quality rather than just a male one. And Jensen would challenge male headship because of the patriarchy that comes with it. Here Trueman must be careful in defining male headship so that it not only sacrifices for and protects women, but so that it it doesn't use paternalism to limit the contributions that women can make.

So, does the Left have more to say against pornography than the Right? In reality, such is a silly question. It is like asking do you want to be able sleep or be able to eat? Why not choose both? From a Christian perspective, there is nothing said by any of the men reviewed here that merits criticism. Nothing! They all have significant contributions to make to those who fight to resist consuming pornography. 

Certainly Christians, like myself, would love to see Hedges and Jensen see the spiritual ramifications of using porn which we see. However, because Christians, like myself, tend to use internal reasons only to motivate ourselves to refrain from sin, we can eventually make ourselves hyper-vigilant about our own internal state and thoughts. Such vigilance can be counterproductive in any fight against temptation as it causes us to obsess about it.  To be motivated to act or refrain from acting for the welfare of others regardless of what benefit it bring us is a foreign motivation to many Conservative Christians. But it is one that could serve us well in our own personal lives as well as in our witness to the world. 

Should Christians Rebel Against Sin?

Christians around the world are in a dilemma. On the one hand, we have grown up with passages like Romans 13 and I Samuel 15:23 that condemn rebellion and command submission to those in authority. For the American Conservative Christian, these ideas have been driven deep into our psyches and souls and thus to hear the other half of our dilemma sometimes causes us to seek an escape. But if we don't make authoritarian leaders like Endrogen, Morsi, Putin, Netanyahu, America's Democratic and Republican parties, and others relics of the past, we will condemn ourselves and all around us to totalitarian rule. And during that totalitarian rule, if not already occurring, we will be forced to both financially and politically support all sorts of evil atrocities.

So if we care that we would be contributing to the abuse of others, the question becomes: Are there ways that us Christians can resist and oppose those in authority and still remain faithful to God and obedient to His Word?

For some, the answer is a slam dunk. "Of course not!" So rather than learning how to resist, some say that we need to focus on how to stay faithful during the coming trials. But such is a self-centered approach and is not always the way that our spiritual forefathers handled those in authority. The Old Testament prophets often challenged the kings over social justice issues in behalf of those who were made to suffer. They did so for the sake of the oppressed. So our choice in today's world where those in power only serve those with wealth is to either try to keep our own noses clean or rebel.

Now if we choose the latter option, we should assume that, at least in some ways, Christians would rebel differently from nonChristians. That rather than seeking to rebel because we are  self-asorbed, we want to flee from accountability,  and we with to be numb to the pain we inflict on others, especially our enemies, we need to discover different methods in how we resist and goals for why we rise up against those who rule over us.

Therefore, I would like to propose two, what I believe to be biblical, guidelines for how Christians are to rebel if they must, against those with authority.  The first guideline comes from Chris Hedges. In his book, The World As It Is, Chris distinguishes rebellion from revolution (see here for quote). While revolution is simply replacing who is in power with those whom you prefer, rebellion is a constant state of opposition we take to whomever is in power for the sake of the vulnerable. Here Chris is addressing why rebellion is preferable to revolution. And what Chris is saying here is that we should be loyal to the principle of defending and caring for the weak rather than continue the same old tribalism that usually revolves around a person.  We could add that depending on revolution and the tribalism involved all to often results in changing the players but not the game. And because we would have sacrificed to install the new leaders should our revolution be successful, we would be least inclined to oppose their abuses. We should also note that we should stand up for our own rights if persecuting us will lead to attacking others who are more vulnerable.

What we should note about the Hedges's  cause for rebellion is that it is at least partially for the sake of those who cannot repay or compensate us. It is for those who have been forsaken and left for dead by the status quo. Rebellion here isn't about fighting or exploiting others in order to increase the chances that I will fame and foture; rather, it is about anonymously standing up for the defenseless. Rebellion here plays no favorites in order to serve the untouchables of our society.

Being the moralist that he is, Hedges wants us to rebel for morality's sake, not because of some perceived financial or power opportunism. And since Hedges is liberal theologian, Conservative Christians like myself ask how can this perspective be unbiblical rather than, in this case wrongfully, assume it is?

However, if we are going to remain faithful to our Christian calling, we can't given into self-righteousness and give ourselves permission to lash out simply because we are defending the poor and oppressed, we have limits what we can do and say. These limits are set by Nicholas Wolterstorff's biblical reminder  (I Peter 2) that we are to honor everyone. Such a command does not limit the level of the opposition we exercise against those in power who oppress the innocent; but it requires that we don't get so carried away with ourselves and our cause that we would fail to give the respect due to those in authority simply because of their position. It basically means that we should not practice what Martin Luther King called "internal violence" or have feelings of hate or showing disrespect for those we want to hold accountable. Since the ends cannot extend past the means, we should note that the more we give into the dark side when opposing oppressors, the more likely it is that we will join them even if we should we win.

There is something horribly wrong when nonChristians are willing to sacrifice so much for justice while Christians prefer to play it safe by staying on the sidelines, focussing on being good, and never being an absentee citizen. Christians should be in the forefront in the protests in Turkey, Brazil, Bulgaria, and the coming protests in Egypt. These protests, for the most part, are about justice. At the same time, Christians participants will have to depart from their fellow activists when it comes to attacking our opponents.  If we are to rebel, it can only be for the sake of the marginalized and morality. In addition we must control how we express that rebellion.