What Was Christendom Good For? Absolutely ...

 I've seen quite a few articles on Christendom written by fellow Christians. Some have condemned it while others favor it. Some say that Christendom was worthy of being preserved while others disagree. The article being reviewed today was written by a person who fits in the latter group. His name is Flynn Evans (brief personal info is at the end of the article).

The article being reviewed today, Christendom, Rightly Understood (click here for the article), provides a defense for Christendom. The defense provided comes from the religiously conservative perspective for it revolves around what Christendom did for Christianity first and America and the West second. Flynn's article starts with a few paragraphs on a few Christians who opposed Christendom. He described these Christian opponents of Christendom as extremists. 

BTW, Evans defines Christendom as the Constantinian relationship between Church and State. In the middle of reviewing some who opposed Christendom, Evans  claims that, even before Constantine's actions of privileging Christianity over other religions, Christianity began to thrive when local rulers showed favoritism toward it. He then goes on to say how Christendom's result of making Christianity a central part of the West and helped the West flourish. Then he gives details about what Christianity brought to the people in the West.

Evans then goes on discuss Christendom's effects on America. How, as Tocqueville claimed, Christianity became America's primary 'political institution.' And from that, it solidified America's exceptionalism and its democracy. Then Evans quotes Tom Holland to say that Christianity  was the only religion then to recognize all people with 'human dignity.' Such is a very questionable claim.

Therefore, Evans claims that to oppose Christendom is to demand an undoing of the benefits that Christianity brought to America and subsequently the world. Thus one must, according to Evans, include with putting Christendom retiring the benefits that would be missing today without Christendom according to Evans.

In all, Evans very neatly shows a trait that I have seen in many a religious and political conservative. That trait is the demand that we religiously conservatives and/or our religion must be praised either for our own current accomplishments or for those of our ancestors. This might point to a claim made by Dave Verhaagen in his book, How White Evangelicals Think:The Psychology Of White Conservative Christians (click here for an Amazon page on the book), about a penchant for narcissism which white evangelicals demonstrated by their views of Christianity and America. 

But with all of this praise for Christendom, what goes unmentioned are the negative effects that people experienced while under Christendom. Many of these effects were suffered by unbelievers while some effects were suffered from believers who were not in a respected race, economic class, or denomination. The history of Western Civilization includes Europe's religious wars and America's religious persecution of Christians by Christians. In fact, the Puritans was one of those groups that persecuted Christians from other denominations. For example, the Puritans persecuted and even martyred four Quakers.

European Christianity also promoted white supremacy. That was evident in European Imperialism, colonialism, brutal anti-semitism, slavery, ethnic cleansing of indigenous people and a culture of racial persecution in America called Jim Crow. Some might object to associating all of those horrific practices with Christianity, as they should. But these practices occurred during Christendom's watch and were often defended by Christians.

Christendom in America continued a period of socially accepted sexual repression with some common sexual practices, which are accepted today, being criminalized. Many in the LGBT community are suffering from the potential of being marginalized for their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. This points to a certain significant level of intolerance for those in the LGBT community that existed for centuries in the West and in America which still exists today in the latter.

Also occurring under Christendom's watch over the West was a materialistic way of living that has now put at high risk the future of human life on the earth. As with imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy, materialistic ways of living were defended by Christians using their religious beliefs.

Evans's failure to mention these other associations with Christendom puts into doubt the positive claims that some have made about Christendom. These failures also give reasons for why some, even some devout Christians, celebrate the end of Christendom. Evans gave more religious reasons why some Christians celebrated the end of Christendom. And that, along with neglecting to mention the negative practices associated with Christendom puts Evans's article on Christendom at risk for being religiously self-absorbed if not narcissistic. 

The article being reviewed paints religiously conservative Christians as being the lead character in the illustration of the bull in a china shop. Perhaps that is why many of us religiously conservative Christians have such a difficult time in learning anything from Critical Theory and Post Modernism.  

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 15, 2023

Feb 22

To Heidelblog and Ari Schaffer for the part of Schaffer's article that reported on the Buckley Program' Eighth Annual College Student Survey. 

The survey has some problems in the options provided. One major problem is that many of the categories for the choice of answers are not well-defined. For example, when asking students if they feel uncomfortable with giving a dissenting opinion to classmates or professors, the selection of answers are 'Frequently,' 'Sometimes,' 'Rarely,' and 'Never.' Three of those answers are not well-defined. In addition, 'Frequently' and 'Sometimes' are grouped as categorized as 'Often' whereas 'Rarely' and 'Never' are counted as 'Not Often.'  To further complicate the issue, the mathematical definition of the word 'some' is at least 1. That could mean that when students answered 'Sometimes,' they could have meant 'Rarely' and vice-versa.

In addition, the existence of free speech is expressed in binary terms. If hate speech, and that goes undefined, is allowed, then this is counted as being an infringement on free speech and the First Amendment. But yelling 'fire' in a public space is against the law. Is that an infringement on Free Speech? Would some forms of labeling or describing people from a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity a threat to society be similar yelling 'fire' in a public place when some of those statements led to violence against those of a given race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity?

Are we aware that denying the Holocaust is illegal in some European countries? If that was the case here, would that be an infringement on the First Amendment? Is denying the existence of systemic racism in America today on par with denying the Holocaust in some European countries? 

And why isn't this blog post including the efforts of Governors DeSantis and Abbott in their report on Free Speech on campuses? Why are teachers and professors afraid of talking about America's past in certain states like Florida or Texas?

Finally, without providing definitions for both socialism and capitalism, the data is insignificant. Which form of capitalism was referred to in the survey? Was it the Bretton-Woods System or Neoliberal Capitalism? This is an important question because the conservative definitions of capitalism and socialism since the Bretton-Woods system of capitalism allows for far more government intervention than Neoliberal Capitalism. 

Which form of socialism was referred to in the survey? Was it Stalinism, which many Marxists do not think of as Socialism, or was it the form that emphasizes the redistribution of power to the workers? Here we should note that Germany's codetermination. laws makes Germany's economic system a hybrid of both Marxism and capitalism.  Or, again, did students use the conservative definition of socialism--big government--while answering the question? Were the students who answered the question about capitalism and socialism aware of all of those distinctions?

The above findings are flawed because the survey was flawed by utilizing not well-defined terms in its answers. But that won't stop some conservatives from using the change in statistics over the years to sound the alarm and incite fear where fear is not warranted.

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

Feb 25

To Thaddeus Kozinski and his article that reviews what has occurred since the end of Christendom and calls for Christendom's return. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

When we look at what has blossomed since the end of Christendom, as listed in the above article, we must realize one point: what Christendom has suppressed. And when we look at what Christendom has suppressed and what has flourished in its absence, we need to ask why would we ever want a return to Christendom.

We should note in this Post Modern age, that Pre Modernism and Modernism has not totally left the world. Pre Modernism is alive and well within most of the major players who're engaged in committing atrocities today. That means that we can't scapegoat secularism for today's threats. And where we can blame secularism, we should note a common thread that is shared by those remnants of Pre Modernism that is producing atrocities: authoritarianism. And when one looks at the definition of Christendom, we need to ask if it is possible to have a Christendom that is lacking in authoritarianism.

Until we can find a form of Christendom that is void of authoritarianism, selling  Christendom today should be near impossible to the outside world. In fact, if we look at how we should share society with those who believe differently, perhaps we should leave Christendom on the ash heap of history and then go on to study how we Christians can contribute to a truly pluralistic and peaceful society and world. Of course one way in which we can contribute to such a world is to tolerate all others who seek such a society and world. But such toleration means forsaking our authoritarian proclivities.

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

To Joseph Mussomeli and his article on the Russian war against Ukraine. In his article, Musomelli has criticized the American involvement in the war as a search for the perfect war. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Though lessons from WW II abound on both sides of Russia's war against Ukraine, to make Hitler the focal point in trying to understand Putin is a grave error.

The lessons that abound from WW II involve Russia's history with invasions from the West and Europe's history with Imperial dreams starting with one invasion and then advancing an invasion or concession at a time. Both sensitivities are valid. And what goes unmentioned is that NATO's move eastward violated the understanding of the agreement made between Bush I and Gorbachev. Gorbachev stated that in his book, <I>The New Russia</I>.

But to understand what we can from Putin, we should keep our eyes focused on Russian history rather than turning our gaze toward Hitler. Before the October, 1917 Revolution stood the Russian Empire governed by the Tsars. For most of those Tsars, authoritarianism was to Russia what Christendom was to America. The Tsars so identified themselves with the nation of Russia that they believed that any opposition to them was a challenge to the nation itself. Lenin continued that same mentality only with using different labels such as 'proletariat' or 'revolution' for 'Russia' and 'Soviet Union' for 'Russian Empire.'  Stalin was Lenin on steroids. Khrushchev brought a brief reprieve that was only repeated by his successors. And it wasn't until Gorbachev that we saw a significantly real break in Russia's authoritarianism. That authoritarianism started to resurrect itself when Yeltsin had power.

Who knows what Putin wants and what is going on in his mind? Nobody knows enough for sure, but we are seeing repeats of Russian and Soviet Union history in Putin's words and actions. And we only need to look at Putin's authoritarian rule over his own people, his history in Chechnya and Georgia,  and his stated reasons, which seemed to have resembled Bush II when defending his own invasion of Iraq, for the invasion against Ukraine.

Putin is attempting to silence Russians's opposition to the war with arrests and imprisonment at home and threats and attempts at intimidation outside of Russia. Putin claims that Ukrainians are Russians. Putin, via the Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, has stated that the 'special operation' is necessary to protect Russia from Western decadence. And, btw, it is Putin who is pointing to the Nazis by claiming that he trying to de-nazify Ukraine. Putin has made references to the NATO threat to Russia from Ukraine. And Putin has reportedly written about renewing the Russian Empire. If that is true, and there is evidence that supports that in Belarus, then though Germany is safe, quite a few other nations are not. There is also the Rodney Dangerfield complaint that Putin believes that Russia gets no respect. That complaint was one of the reported reasons why Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba.

It appears that no current world leader has either read the Russell-Einstein Manifesto or, if they had remembers it. That Manifesto clearly states that in the nuclear age we have a choice between relying on war and existence. And yet, imperialism cannot be tolerated--a lesson learned from WW II. That puts us between a rock and a hard place, none of which was recognized in the above article despite the some of the good but irrelevant points it made.

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

March 7

To Scott McDermand and the first of 2 planned articles which partially layout a case for and defend the Regulative Principle of worship as promoted by the Reformers. This article was posted by Heidelblog.

There are multiple problems with the regulative principle for worship. They include:

1.   The interpretation of the 2nd Commandment used to claim and defend the regulative principle goes well beyond any plain reading of the that commandment. For in that commandment, God only tells us about a certain set of objects that we cannot make as well as a worship practice that we must not employ.  That is simply the plain reading of the 2nd Commandment. To say anything beyond that is to read into the Scriptures.

2.    Yes, other parts of the Old Testament specify exactly how God must be worshiped, but those ways are based on both man's standing with God before Christ died and rose again and how those ways of worship were shadows of and thus what would be fulfilled and thus made useless by Christ's 1st coming. To insist on the regulative principle is to employ an Old Testament mentality on the New Testament community. Here, we should remember about what Jesus said to the woman at the well in John 4: that there will come a time when instead of having to go to Jerusalem, we must worship God in spirit and in truth.

Having said that, there is something to learn from the regulative principle. That care must be taken in how we approach the worship of God. When we are not reverent enough in how we approach the worship of God, it is because we are being presumptuous about our standing before God. For we can only stand before and worship God because of God's grace and mercy which has been shown to and showered on those who believe in Christ. Again, we are to worship God in spirit and in truth. Thus, we must worship God in reverence acknowledging our unworthiness, outside of what Christ has done for us, to worship God in His house.

3.    The regulative principle was not practiced by Jesus nor by the Jews both before and when Jesus came to earth. In fact, there is no regulative principle described in the New Testament. Paul does describe how believers were coming together to worship; but that was simply a description, not an exclusive set of rules.

We should note something else here. When the regulative principle is generalized to other practices and approaches outside of worship, we, paradoxically, limit how we can use the New Testament to guide how we live when we meet circumstances and situations that were not experienced in the New Testament. 

At the same time, we must remember Romans 14 when fellowshipping with fellow believers who adhere to the regulative principle as they must do the same with fellowshipping with fellow believers who abide by the normative principle. The latter says that we must refrain from worshiping and living before God in ways forbidden by God's Word.

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

March 9

To R. Scott Clark and his blog post against Christian Transformationalism because the New Testament calls us to be pilgrims and aliens, not transformers. This appeared in Heidelblog.

A weakness in Transformationalism which Clark did not point out is that, in the end, it is antithetical to democracy. In the end, it seeks a privileged position for Christianity in and over society. 

It is true that we are aliens in the world, though our lifestyles might not reflect that when we are financially privileged. But what does being an alien in this world prohibit Christians from doing when interacting with the world?

There are 2 weaknesses with 2KT, which is Clark's position. The first is its failure to acknowledge that to extent that it pushes natural law on society, it too is a form of transformationalism. This is especially apparent in how it views sexual issues, especially homosexuality. That same sex behavior is demonstrated in around 1,500 species of animals shows that the natural law being pushed by 2KT is a Christian view of natural law.

The 2nd weakness of 2KT is that it prohibits the Church from speaking out as an institution against corporate sins. Corporate sins such as systemic racism, economic exploitation and classism, sexism and patriarchy, immoral wars, a renewed arms race and militarism, and destroying the earth's ability to adequately sustain human life either because of pollution and/or climate change must be visibly opposed by the Church as an institution. When the Church does not publicly speak out against these sins, it becomes complicit with them. 

And though I  disagree with Clark's overall position here, I do agree  with him when he says that the Church is not charged to bring a golden age onto the earth. But opposing corporate sins and working for social justice does not imply that one is working for an ecclesiastical golden age. Neither does opposing corporate sins and working for social justice imply that one is working to establish a  privileged place for the Church in society. 

If we want to look at a good example of the Church as an institution speaking out against corporate sins, then we need to look no farther than what Martin Luther King Jr. and the SCLC did and said during the era of the Civil Rights Movement. Though King had golden age visions, what he and the SCLC opposed and what they promoted neither brought a golden age to America nor did it establish a privileged position for the Church in and over society. King and the SCLC simply opposed the sins of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism while promoting the rights and welfare of people without respect to religion. And where the Church was silent on racism, economic exploitation, and militarism back then, it was complicit with those sins just as the Church would be complicit if it didn't warn people against sexual immorality.

Of course, there is an immediate earthly advantage for the Church to be silent about corporate sins. That advantage is that that silence allows the Church to support those with wealth and power when those with wealth and power benefit from the committing of those corporate sins. But that kind of support should offend the Church since those in the Church are called to be aliens in this world.

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

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the portion of Trueman's article that was quoted from in this particular Heidelblog post. Trueman's article challenged evangelical leaders to be as courageous as J.K. Rowling was when she claimed that trans women are not women.

Trueman's article can be found at:

https://wng.org/opinions/are-evangelical-leaders-as-courageous-as-j-k-rowling-1677156614

 Carl's article contains nothing more than an authoritarian discourse aimed at refusing to distinguish those who have been helped by gender affirming care from those who are not. 

It is authoritarian because it involves a kind of all-or-nothing thinking about those who have been helped from receiving some level of gender-affirming care and those who provide it. His lack of precision and making distinctions in the different kinds of treatments that children with gender dysphoria are given is another example of a kind of all-or-nothing thinking he employs. And that kind of thinking is seen in his calling people evil in an emotional rant wrapped in  labels. In addition, Trueman's view of gender-affirming care do not seem to reflect J.K. Rowling on transgenderism. Rather, it seems that Trueman's mentality and approach to the subject has more in common with the critics of Rowling than Rowling herself.

If Trueman were to actually employ a rational argument, he would make meaningful distinctions like some of the ones mentioned above. If here were to employ a rational argument, he could borrow an argument from Robert Jensen, who is a leftist,  who looks at the Transgender issue from a feminist perspective. In arguing against allowing males who have transgendered into females to participate in women's sports, Jensen points out that one cannot  conflate gender identity with biological sex because while the former is psychological, the latter is biological--btw, that seems to be J.K. Rowling's view from what I read. Thus the two, biological sex and gender identity, could never be merged. And that those who started as biological males had a physical  advantage over cisgendered females in sports.

But then again, to refuse to conflate gender identity with biological sex on a consistent basis, Trueman and others would have to admit that biological sex is not the only factor involved in one's gender identity. But such an admission would go against a conservative authoritarian mindset.

Because many people have received help from gender affirming care and because we don't know all of the factors involved with  what causes people to experience gender dysphoria and seek a change in genders, we need to both talk with the awareness that  when talking we are walking on thin ice while remaining firm with our Scriptural convictions that transgenderism is wrong. That means that the issue of transgenderism is complicated. But those who prefer to make authoritarian appeals view complexity in the same way that Superman regards kryptonite.

Keeping up with the times in terms of knowledge does not imply that we must change our moral beliefs or shed religiously conservative convictions. Keeping up with the times means that we need to seek wisdom and understanding in order to grapple with today's issues while remaining faithful to the Scriptures. The kind of thinking involved in authoritarianism sees little to no need to seek wisdom and understanding here.

 

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

 Oct 17

To R. Scott Clark and his article on lamenting the passing of Christendom and whether we should work for and want a restoration of some version of that Christendom. In that article, Clark describes in positive terms how there is a nature-grace divide here where we should want natural law to govern society while grace rules over the Church. This article was posted on Heidelblog.

Over all, the above article has good points to make. But there are false accusations made about certain groups, such as the ones made against libraries, school boards, and sexual revolutionaries.

There is no New Testament basis for restoring Christendom to America, I fully agree with Clark on that point. If only he had stopped there. For there is also no basis to so neatly  divide and group civil life with nature and  church with grace especially when both are concerned with morality. That division and grouping were made by past theological heroes who grew up and  lived in European Christendom; we don't see that division in the New Testament. But even with that morality, some who are claiming to be against the restoration of a past Christendom are promoting a Christendom-lite when it is the Church's understanding of nature and natural law that they desire to impose on civil life. In fact, some call imposing natural law, which for some Christians is the second table of the Law of Moses, 'Christian Nationalism.'

So let's talk about nature for example. Homosexuality violates the Biblical view of nature and how God designed it; but homosexuality is prevalent in the animal kingdom. Is that to say that homosexuality is in accord with nature? We should note here that same-sex behavior is exhibited in animals from anywhere between a few hundred species to over 1,500 species. If sin is not an issue with animals, then is it nature that is telling animals to practice same-sex behavior?

What we Christians who live in democratic societies must be fully aware of are the implications that come with concepts of democracy and freedom which we claim to cherish. Democracy is not just majority rule, it is a system where the majority exercises self-restraint so as to not oppress the minority nor to deny them their equal rights and status. And Freedom carries with it the same strain of self-restraint because Freedom - Equality = Privilege. Because of the influence of the free market on democracy and the penchant for authoritarianism by us religiously conservative Christians, we lack the full understanding of the self-restraint implied by those two terms.

We need to distinguish when we can promote certain rights in the context of a democratic and free society from when we should discourage or even prohibit those same rights in the Church. Just as we can promote the freedom of religion in society while prohibiting the worship of false gods in the Church, we must learn to distinguish between promoting the freedom to engage in certain sexual practices and relationships in society from prohibiting those same practices and relationships in the Church and in our evangelism.

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

Oct 28

To Heidelblog and its article that quotes Felice J. Killer's letter complaining about a regulation that prevents parents from being involved in the school's response to those children who are suffering from Gender Dysphoria.

Felice J. Killer's entire letter can be found at:

    https://pitt.substack.com/p/re-administrative-regulation-259

Felice Killer's letter, part of which is quoted in the above article, shows the discrepancy between what some, especially many religiously conservative Christians, believe about gender identity and what actually exists. Yes, parents have the right to raise their children in the way they see fit, but that right is not absolute especially when the safety of a child is in question.

Because of how we approach the Scriptures, many of us read Genesis 1:27 in ways that unnecessarily contradict the real world. How we read Genesis 1:27 where it says how God made man as male and female is a prime example. That statement was made prior to the fall of both man and nature. What we see today are a variety of ways by which a person could be born as being intersex. Being intersex could include being born with mixed genitalia where the external genitalia is not in accord with the internal genitalia. Or being intersex could involve where the external genitalia are not pronounced enough to determine the gender. One can have the the normal chromosomes of a male or female and still be be intersex. Or one can either have one sex chromosome or 3 sex chromosomes. And so we are not just physically born male or female after the fall.

The assumption made by many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians about gender identity is that even with those who are not intersex but are male or female, that what we know from the external  genitalia is the only message nature is giving to people. But considering what we know about those who are intersex, we can no longer say that for sure. And thus, we can't assume from what we can observe from the chromosomal makeup of a person and one's biological sex what nature is actually saying to a person.

And then again, there are the psychological and social factors that go into gender identity. What we can't afford to do that both the LGBT community and many fellow religiously conservative Christians do is to conflate biological sex with gender identity while being faithful to the Scriptures. Thus, we must recognize one's biological sex and their gender identity as two separate entities. And just as one's gender identity cannot change one's biological sex, one's biological sex cannot be forced onto one's gender identity.

Here we should remember the Church's failure when it came to recognizing Heliocentrism. Many Reformed and Roman Church leaders not only initially rejected Heliocentrism, they attacked it with a vengeance because of how they read the Scriptures regarding creation and the earth's relationship with the sun and the heavens. And lest we think that gender identity issues are peculiar to Western Civilization, we should realize that some Native American tribes recognized up to 5 different genders. So the question becomes, when it comes to biological sex and gender identity, are we doing to gender identity issues what the Church did to those who promoted Heliocentrism?   Our challenge as Christians is to be willing to relearn what we thought we knew about biological sex and gender identity while remaining faithful to the Scriptures.

Some other things are true regarding gender identity. Gender Dysphoria can be experienced by children as young as 3 years old. And that the devastating effects that can occur to those who are experiencing Gender Dysphoria are associated with family and peer reactions to those people to the extent that it can cause depression and even produce suicidal tendencies. Thus, those are safety issues when it comes to responding to those with Gender Dysphoria.

I don't know what the correct balance is to the competing issues of helping children with Dysphoria and parental rights. But I do know that many of us religiously conservative Christians have a too simplistic view of the relationship between one's biological sex and one's gender identity. And that too simplistic of a view can make us feel persecuted as we wrongly respond to those with Gender Dysphoria. Remaining faithful to the Scriptures should not prohibit us acknowledging the complexity involved when it comes to Gender Dysphoria. 

The Christian Counterrevolution

 To many a religiously conservative Christian, the 2015 Obergefell SCOTUS decision was their Waterloo in the Culture Wars. Yet many of us have yet to give up the ship. Many continue to fight back and their aim is to codify at least some of the Biblical laws the govern society's sexual practices.

I come from the Reformed Theological position. And almost every Reformed thinker, scholar, preacher, and whatever else I've read or listened to have commented on LGBT issues multiple times. Prior to the Obergefell decision, these public Christian figures opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage mainly because it would put limits on the rights of Christians in how they could treat those from the LGBT community. That is that Christians might have to recognize those in the LGBT community as having equal rights and thus might have to live or work in too close of a proximity with those from that community.

Now that same-sex marriage is legal, Reformed Theological leaders are labeling our society as being anti-Christian and that we should expect more and more hostility, and even persecution, because of our beliefs about values and sexual practices. And thus a counterrevolution is thought to be necessary in self-defense. But here we should remember what the LGBT community suffered through when they were being marginalized because of the Christian influence on society. During those days, many of us were the ones who visited hostility and persecution on others. Now people are trying not only to stop those injustices, but to prevent it from ever happening again. And when people try to undo and prevent long-standing social injustices, they often employ a phobic reaction so that they try so hard  that they employ a throw out the baby with the bathwater approach.

And so those leaders want a reversal of the legal standing of same-sex of marriage and even homosexual acts. And thus they are working toward codifying Biblical sexual mores and values for everyone in society, even for unbelievers. And the current Dobbs decision by SCOTUS now gives our courts the necessary tools for reversing past SCOTUS decisions allowing for the possible reversal of rulings that protect homosexual practices and same-sex marriage. In fact, some Reformed leaders speak and act like reversing the current legal protections for the LGBT community is the most important task that today's Christians face.

One of the unfortunate parts of this religiously conservative Christian response to losing the Culture Wars is the insistence on imposing Biblical sexual values on society. Well, let's say that they are starting with imposing Biblical sexual values on society. I'm afraid that these fellow Christians will support political leaders who say they support imposing other Biblical mores and values in other areas of life. That makes these Christians vulnerable to political opportunists who falsely promise the they will promote laws that incorporate those values. 

But the religiously conservative Christian response is also making many of my fellow Christians vulnerable to leaders who are more authoritarian than they are Biblical. And the trouble with falling to such leaders is that once we embrace their authoritarianism and leadership status, we become less rational in our decision making. We lose capacity for using the Scriptures to rationally consider, and even question, what these leaders are teaching.

And all of the above points to the current status of the American Christian Counterrevolution. Its first problem is that instead of opting for cultural coexistence (a.k.a., multiculturalism), it's directing Christians to fight a culture war in order to gain a place of supremacy over unbelievers in society. Such a response, which is not supported by the New Testament, makes us enemies of Democracy. And as enemies of Democracy, we sabotage our efforts to carry out the Great Commission--that is if we are still interested in carrying it out. Such a response will sabotage our efforts because unbelievers will see our oppression of others before they will listen to us share the Gospel.

The Culture Wars being waged by many of my fellow Christians is becoming a cover for a larger war. It is camouflaging the efforts of some Christians to either create a Christian nation or to restore Christendom in America. The difference between the two is that with the former we see more blatant effort by Christians to pass more restrictive laws based on the Bible for our nation while the latter speaks of a greater prevalence of Christian values in culture and society as well as passing some laws. 

In short, too many my fellow religiously conservative Christians are, with their counterrevolution, seeking a place of supremacy in society and our nation over unbelievers rather than sharing power with them as equals. That searching for supremacy can only end badly. For it can only end in either establishing a Christian Fascism, or an imitation of the relationship between Church and State that Russia has, or a failed attempt at supremacy where though  it is good that the attempt failed, the harm done to the reputation of the Gospel will be immense.

Whose Fault Is It?

Tim Keller (click here for a bio) has written a series of 4 articles on the fall and possible restoration of the American Church. His first article is about the falterings of Mainline Protestant churches. However, it is difficult to know whether the first article is more about the disarray in the American Church or in America itself because of the loss of influence that the American Church has had on society. He does have a concern for both falterings (click here for the article). 

In this article, Keller gives too rosy of a picture of both America and the American Church prior to the fall of Mainline Protestant churches and the 1960s. In fact, his view of how America has changed seems to be a bit white-male-Christian-centric. The failures that existed in America before the fall of the Mainline Protestant churches and the 1960s were glossed over and almost described as exceptions to the rule. What Keller misses from the good old days of America was when there seemed to be a national consensus on values that included:

1. Love of country
2. Love of family
3. Serving the community/caring for neighbors
4. Sexual chastity
5. Thrift
6. Generosity
7. Respect for authority

But this is where Keller's view of the past might be distorted by the lenses through which he sees America's past. White males had good reason to love their country back then. Did blacks? Many family problems were hidden. The fact that women were stuck in dysfunctional families because societal practices that made women significantly dependent on men to exist. Before the 1960s, women could be refused jobs or the buying of a home because of their biological sex. Women often needed their husbands' approval to get a loan or a credit card. A landlord could refuse to rent property to a woman with children.

Up through the 1960s, blacks had to endure Jim Crow laws and culture in the South and harsh segregation and intense prejudice in the North. Blacks could be beaten, tortured, mutilated, bludgeoned, and murdered by whites, both civilians and police, without accountability. Their basic rights were denied including the right to vote. And gone with the right to vote was the privilege of sitting on a jury. That meant that both blacks accused of crimes and whites who were accused of visiting violence on blacks were often tried in front of strongly biased juries. And all of that does not include many of the indignities and injustices that blacks suffered in this nation. An indicator of how bad it was for blacks before the 1960s could be seen in what America's first black MLB baseball player, Jackie Robinson, said about singing the national anthem. Interracial marriages were illegal in the majority of states.

Other races didn't fare well either. Native Americans were horribly treated. Latinos also faced brutal violence and harsh discrimination.

Though they were receiving better treatment by the 1950s, America's labor history is replete with government violence as local and state federal officials would persecute and questionably convict. There was also the murder labor activists and leaders.

As for the LGBT community, homosexual acts were criminalized and homosexuality itself was considered to be a mental illness and even a 'sociopathic personality disturbance and the government considered homosexuals to be security risks (click here for the source). They also suffered discrimination and violence.

Keller sees the 1960s as the turning point by which failures in the Mainline Church were beginning to have their full negative effects on the nation. Beginning in the 1960s, Keller sees the switch from more of a united, community-centered American society that had a shared set of religiously conservative Christian values to a society that was based on individualism and relative morality. And the result of the emphasis on individualism and relative morality is a fracturing of American society that produced hard-line schisms both in society and the Church.

In short, when Keller talks about the problems we see in American society today, he seems to compare them with the state of white America in the 1950s and before.

Now Keller doesn't believe that all was bad in the 1960s. He had expresses respect for Martin Luther King Jr because his movement appealed to a universal values and a higher authority. But that is the only rights movement that Keller expresses respect for.

According to Keller, the failures of the Mainline Church could be due to its embracing of Liberal Theology. That embracing began in either the late 19th or early 20th centuries. What Liberal Theology did was to deny the existence of the supernatural character of Jesus, His works, and His death and resurrection along with the supernatural method in which the Scriptures contain revelation rather than a progressive reflection on life. Liberal Theology then sought of find significance in the Scriptures by identifying the general principle of life and justice that could be found there. The Mainline Church then became a place where political causes and identity replaced the orthodox Christian view that the Church was a place for redeemed sinners. 

As a result, according to Keller, the population and influence of the Mainline Church lessened because people began to realize that they didn't need such a church to do what the mainline Church was doing. This is where individualism and moral relativity replaced reliance on a higher moral authority and natural law in both the Church and society. And because the values that Liberal Theology produced were not widely enough accepted in America, there are no common set of values in America today.

The time period that existed before the 1960s was a period of Christendom in America. Here we could define Christendom as a period where religiously conservative Christianity had a dominant hold on American values and its laws. While Keller wants to scapegoat the Mainline Church for this fall of Christendom and the fracturing of America, we really have to ask ourselves whether the pivotal time period of the 1960s was pointing out and protesting not just inconsistencies in America's Christendom, but its glaring errors and moral failures.

Here we should compare our current time period the religiously conservative Christian Church seeking to restore the Christendom that was lost with the Church during the time of the Apostles. During the latter time period, there was no Christendom. And as we read the New Testament, we don't see any effort or concern to establish Christendom during that time period. Now that doesn't prove anything about the value, or lack thereof, of Christendom. However, the 1st century Church was concerned with evangelism and maintaining a peaceful unity, faithfulness, and purity of the Church. That doesn't mean that we should have no concern for social justice. It is that such a concern should be a part of our evangelism and maintaining faithfulness in the Church. Thus, when we open our eyes to the full failure of Christendom in this nation, perhaps we would do better to follow the 1st century Church in doing the same. I say that as someone who disagrees with a significant portion of Keller's analysis of the past but shares his religiously conservative Christian theology.

A final word must be added here about the state of religiously conservative American Christianity today. While universal values and natural law has been portrayed by Keller as predominantly being a conservative concern and practice, many of these same Christians are exhibiting the greatest difficulty in accepting widely held views of our current situation consisting of climate change, the continued presence of systemic racism, gun violence, and the pandemic. Yes, our current situation and moral values are not the same things. However, accepting commonly held truths, whether they be factual truths or moral truths should be strongly connected with holding to universal values. And yet, Keller seems to be scapegoating Liberal Theology and the mainline Church for what ails this nation.

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 Blogs For January 12, 2022

 Dec 22

To R. Scott Clark and the Reverend Dr Peter Sanlon for the part of Sanlon's article quoted in Clark's article that warns the PCA not to accept any appeal or argument made by Side-B Christians regarding their standing in that denomination. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Sanlon's article can be found at either

https://theaquilareport.com/a-letter-to-pca-friends-from-england-speaking-to-your-future/

or

https://www.reformation21.org/blog/a-letter-to-pca-friends-from-england

There are several problems with the above article. The first problem is that there seems to be an expressed fear of being able to distinguish the different flavors of Side-B Christians.  There is an expressed fear that if the more acceptable Side-B Christians are welcomed as spiritual peers, then the worst Side-B Christians are sure to follow. Such thinking is a form of all-or-nothing thinking which, in part, is part and parcel of authoritarianism and thus not necessarily Biblical.

There is a problem with the claim that some Side-B Christians are 'downplaying' the work of the Holy Spirit in being able to change their desires. With that is the implication that those correcting Side-B Christians have experienced a fuller work of the Spirit, that they have no equivalent issues to the Side-B Christian struggle with SSA. So perhaps Machen's racism with its implicit white supremacy expressed in some of his letters to his mother is not as serious as struggling with SSA. Of course, it is unknown if Machen recognized let alone struggled with his own racism. And before him, we have Whitfield and Edwards and their accepting of white supremacy as expressed in their owning or viewing slavery. Here we should be reminded of how they benefited from those beliefs. And what should we say about today's exemplary Christians from the Reformed Theology Tradition who are accepting of systemic racism or the economic exploitation that is a foundational part of our current economic system because they, like Machen, are members of privileged groups? What should we say about those same Christians who are apathetic to the suffering caused by our nation's misuse of its military and other services or by our foreign policies because they live in a privileged country? I could go on.

Finally, isn't it one thing to question experienced or emotional based beliefs when they run counter to the Scriptures and another thing to question those same kind of beliefs when they run counter to or go beyond the scope of issues covered by the Reformed Confessions? If we can't make that distinction, then are we implying that like the Scriptures, the Confessions are inerrant and sufficient to guide Christians living in today's world? Do we really think that none of today's issues are new to what the writers of our confessions thought of or had to deal with? Are we implying that because of our Reformed Confessions and Catechisms that we do not need to list to others as they share about their experiences and feelings? 

Certainly there are faults, some very serious, that come with the different varieties of Side-B Christianity. But their problems in no way imply that those who automatically reject them as  being spiritual peers are either correct in their rejection of them or have no faults as serious as any Side-B Christians have.

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

Dec 28

To W. Robert Godfrey and his church school lesson on the changes in our world due to the overthrow of Christendom. Thie appeared on the Abounding Grace Radio Blog.

Besides oversimplifying Hegel, Marx, and the struggle to improve, Godfrey employs a double standard. For at the end he says that Christians are easy to attack because they are sinners and not perfect. And so if one only focuses on their sins and ignores what they do is good, it is easy to attack Christianity. And yet he seems not to consistently employ the same graciousness when dealing with the faults of those who sought to overthrow Christendom.

In addition, we might want to ask if there is something wrong with unbelievers only seeking to improve life on earth for others. And if Christians do not to join them in that venture, doesn't that makes them guilty of what Lenin observed and thus charged the Christians of his day with? 

So does what Godfrey said about Christians and their faults apply to whatever group, movement, or ideology that we wish to criticize? For it seems that Godfrey is complaining that Christianity is being rejected simply because of the sins of Christians while ignoring Christianity's contribution and yet he seems not to mind rejecting other ideologies as a result of employing the same logic. Here we should note that Martin Luther King Jr., if memory serves, borrowed from Hegel in some of his analysis. 

Also, if we want to focus so on the secular prophecy that predicted Hitler's emergence, why not also examine WW I to note how each side claimed that the Christian God was on their side. And what about the colonialism, imperialism, slavery, ethnic cleansing, anti-semitism, and such which were all the fruit of Christendom?

The problem with traditionalists is that they rely too heavily on the past to analyze and respond to the present. The problem with narcissists is that they don't rely enough on the past to understand and respond to the present. And if we placed a  line between those two positions, we find that most of us lean, at various points on that line, one way or the other. Unfortunately, our world changes and that requires us to change. And the failure to change wisely dooms one to suffer the harsh consequences that comes from either overreacting or under reacting to our ever changing world.

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

Jan 3

To Gene Veith and his article on how Trump is not receiving the credit he deserves for the development of the vaccines and how he is being vilified for his Covid policies. In the end, Veith asks about how one reacts to Trump and whether Trump should run for President. Veith's opinion is that Trump's influence and political career will disappear. This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos.

There is no doubt that Trump deserves credit for making the situation more feasible for developing the vaccines--though we need to remember that Trump did not develop the vaccines himself, Al Gore did.

But where Trump deserves unwanted negative credit was in his flaunting of the disease and, thus, his flaunting of medical science in how seriously he took the disease after the end of April of 2020. His flaunting of the disease included his promotion of hydroxychloroquine and deliberate disregard for the wearing of masks and his pushing people to prematurely return to life as normal. His flaunting of medical science was parallel to his ridicule of the courts and the election system after the election. His behavior, in both cases, encouraged people to prefer offbeat sources like QAnon to medical science and the courts even where his own appointed judges presided.

Yes, Trump does deserve credit for fostering an environment that helped speed the development of the vaccines. But he also deserves credit for flaunting medical science and thus encouraging others to do the same with regard how they were to react to the Covid-19 pandemic. And Veith doesn't help here when he presents the story of Trump and Covid in such a bipolar manner. It is as if Veith was trying to make the case that if Trump is not the epitome of evil, then he must be innocent of the Covid-related accusations against him.

As for whether one should support Trump for President again, let us remember how he has tried to make people so dependent on his alternative facts and himself as the sole source for reliable information and news. And let's remember Jan 6, 2020, a day that could have lived in infamy if some of his supporters had their way in that insurrection.

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

Jan 4

To Paul Krause and his article that tries to establish Western Exceptionalism by trying to tie it to the exceptionalism found in the Hebrew Bible. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I guess by praising the Hebrew Bible, one is praising oneself or one's own group when one tries to establish strong ties between the Hebrew Bible and oneself or one's own group. But we should note two problems with that approach. First, the New Testament is the completion of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament makes it clear that without that completing of the Hebrew Bible, one is left to be condemned by its principles so praised in the above article because of one's own violations of those principles.

Second, history is quite clear in pointing out the vast disconnect that exists between the principles of the Hebrew Bible and what has driven Western Civilization. However, there is a point of continuity between the Hebrew Bible and Western Civilization: religious intolerance. Religious diversity was labeled as idolatry punishable by God's judgment and sometimes physical death as sanctioned in the Hebrew Bible. A major theme in Western history is the practice of religious intolerance unless an ulterior motive could be satisfied by tolerating other religions.

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

Jan 6

To Patrick M. Garry and his article that attacks the Left for its promotion of an anti-Constitutional democracy. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There are a few things to comment on in the above article. First, there is a conflation of Democratic liberals with the Left. The Left is anti-Capitalist to varying degrees, Democratic liberals are not.

Next, we cannot adequately describe the intentions of The Constitution without noting its context and citing from Yates's notes on the Constitutional debates. What spurred the writing of The Constitution was neither the Revolutionary War nor the newfound independence from Great Britain;  what spurred the writing of that document was Shays Rebellion and the widespread dissent caused by the economic distress of the time. As a result, America's own elites felt threatened and wanted a stronger federal government that would be able to put down resistance. We should note that Madison was not just opposed to direct democracy, but also to allowing all classes of people having the right to vote so that the wealthy could be protected from the demands of the rest. Here we should remember the occupational demographics of those who participated in the Constitutional debates as well as the writer of The Constitution itself. Many were slaveholders or bondholders. 

The Federal Papers make it clear that the charge of factionalism was nothing more than political speech aimed at those with whom America's financial elites disagreed on economic solutions for that time. We should also note that The Contitution initially did not allow for voters, and only around 5% of the population could vote at the time of the writing of that document, to vote for their Senate representatives. Senators were appointed by their state governments, along with the length of a Senator's term, in order to protect Senators from popular opinion.

If democracy is the rule of the people, then America has never been a democracy in the first place. America's varying levels of embracing white supremacy has made sure of that. At best, we are an ethnocracy. But even outside that ethnocracy, whatever democratic elements that exist in our government are strongly limited by the rule of  financial elites (see  https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B  ). 

The lack of democracy and the rule of specific groups  such as whites or financial elites it is what is being defended here. Such a rule produces an authoritarianism that has profoundly infected all political ideological sides from libertarianism to conservatism to  liberalism to the left. In other words, what we are experiencing is a continual King-Of-The-Hill battle for control over the nation. And though more democratic in form that the then different styles of governments were at its time, The Constitution started us down this road a stealth authoritarian rule by privileged groups of this nation. And defense of such an authoritarianism by a religiously conservative Christian source should note surprise anyone since conservative Christianity has a strong penchant for authoritarianism.

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

Jan 9

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that advises the Alliance of Reformed Churches (ARC) on how to proceed after spliting from the Reformed Church of America (RCA). This appeared in the Heidelblog.

The mocking of the Mainline denominations simply because they have attempted to address issues that we daily face because we live in today's world is not consistent with how we are to live as Christians. And that is one of the problems with the above article. Correcting others as if one is above them is a temptation that we face as Christians and thus how we confront others should be tempered by our own failures and sins. And we should be able to do that because we who hold to the Reformed traditions pride ourselves in believing that we are saved by grace alone.

It is also nice to know that those in the Reformed sideline churches tolerate us believers who don't hold to conservative social and political views. We should thank those social and political conservatives for being so gracious for allowing us to be members of their churches.

If I were to advise the ARC about its future, I would say that instead of looking at being either faithful to the Confessions or being culturally relevant as a choice, it should look at both as being siren songs with each containing its own hazards and dangers. 

There is a certain degree to which we need to be faithful the the Confessions, but lest those Confessions begin to compete with the Scriptures for our attention and dependency, we need to lower the pedestal on which they are often placed. We need to see that the writers of those Confessions as well as other writings from the past were significantly influenced by their own cultures and life experiences. And thus, to depend too much on those Confessions and writings not only can cause us to depend too much on them, it can make us less able to translate what is in the Scriptures to today's life. Here we should remember that a key fault of traditionalists is to depend too heavily on the past to understand and respond to the present.

On the other hand, we need to distinguish between being culturally relevant from being culturally influential. That is because being influential sometimes depends on affirming current actions, attitudes, and beliefs that go against the Scriptures. Being culturally relevant simply means being able to make understandable what the Scriptures have said in order to clearly address today's issues. Our ability to translate the Scriptures that way can be limited when we depend too much on Confessions and the writing s of others from the past who were heavily influenced by their own cultures and who did not face the world we face today.

The Scriptures must be our guide above all guides. As for the Confessions, we must realize that, like ourselves, not only have the writers of those Confessions and other writings  face issues unique for their time and location, but that how we look at the Scriptures has already been influenced by our own culture and life experiences. And thus to better understand the Scriptures, we must be honest in how we look at both ourselves and the writers of our Confessions and other writings has affected how we interpret the Scriptures. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 22, 2021

Dec 14

To Stephen M. Klugewicz and his article about the nobility of conservative thinkers and how they sometimes fight for lost causes but often pessimistic because of the world around them. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog. 

According to the above article, conservative thinkers do not believe in utopias and theybelieve that the pursuit of them is dangerous. And yet, they seem to believe that they have a monopoly on what is true, good, and virtuous, which is a shared trait with those who attempt to build utopias.

According to the above article, conservative thinkers have everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them--a phraseology borrowed from Martin Luther King Jr. when he was talking about the West.

According to the above article, the conservative thinker thinks the same of himself in comparison with nonconservatives as the Pharisee thought of himself compared with the publican (see Luke 18:9-14).

Yes, conservatism has ideas to contribute to the well-being of mankind. But so do liberalism and leftist ideologies. We should note that none of those ideologies, along with any other ideologies not mentioned, are omniscient. And because of that, we all need to listen to those who hold to ideas and beliefs other than our own.

Finally, we should note that the person, conservative or nonconservative, who believes his own press is a sibling to the person who would act as his own lawyer.

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

Dec 15

To R. Scott Clark and Steve Dowling for Clark's quoting from Dowling's article that dissents from a PCA denominational hearing that decided to support the ordination of a Christian who is same sex attracted but does not act on that attraction and believes that he will always have that attraction. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Steve Dowling's article can be found at:

https://theaquilareport.com/dissenting-opinion-on-the-sjc-decision-in-the-missouri-presbytery-greg-johnson-case/

Why do my fellow religiously conservative Christians often resort to using pedophilia in comparisons with homosexuality? Why? Can't they see the differences between the two attractions or are they unintentionally using hyperbole to demean homosexuality?

We should note something from the NT, it is grossly significant sins that makes one's Christian faith questionable. Not all of those grossly significant sins include actions, but many do. We should note something else about homosexuality in the NT, though it is a grossly significant sin, there are sins, even sexual sins, that are worse. For example, a man having sexual relations with his father's wife, see I Cor 5, is a sin not even tolerated by pagans--which is unbelievers, not the motorcycle gang,  Meanwhile, an honest reading of Romans 1:18ff tells us that, though against nature, homosexuality among unbelievers should not surprise us. 

So what about those who are SSA compared with those who struggle with lusting after people of the opposite sex? What do we, people who are attracted to the opposite sex, really know about being SSA that we can render a fair judgment on those who are SSA? And are we going to be consistent with how we judge and respond to those who share our own sexual sins? If a Christian no longer acts on SSA, then doesn't their life demonstrate and aren't they acknowledging  an ongoing sanctification? If a Christian is no longer looking at porn, does their life not demonstrate and are they not acknowledging an ongoing sanctification? Even when a Christian acknowledges that a desire they have is sinful, that Christian can very well be demonstrating and acknowledging an ongoing sanctification.

Fear in Dowling's dissenting article I sense. And as we all know from intergalactic history, fear is the the path to the dark side. Fear is the path to becoming the Pharisee from the parable of the 2 men praying. Ok, maybe not the path, but it is a path all too often taken. I sense fear because Dowling's dissent is authoritarian in nature and authoritarianism is a fear driven response. It is the kind of fear that makes one reluctant to make distinctions, such as what we see in those with phobias. Here we should note that authoritarianism often employs black-white thinking and such thinking is strongly incapable of making distinctions. And from what I have read and understand about the situation, that seems to be the case here.

I have no problem with saying that a Christian who is applying/nominated for a church office who is also SSA needs closer scrutiny. They also may need more church resources in maintaining their resistance to their attraction. But having met Christians who are SSA and who are not acting on that attraction, we are making a horrible mistake when we automatically disqualify them from holding church offices because of the struggles they have. But worse than that, we are becoming more vulnerable to becoming the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying when we adamantly oppose their being accepted and recognized as church officers.

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

Dec 16

To W. Robert Godfrey and his adult Church School lessons on the passing of Christendom. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio blog.

Perhaps a reason that we are confused about the end of Christendom is because of how we see  our history. On the one hand, Godfrey says that there are exceptions to his generalities. On the other hand, Americans did not have to address anyone by calling them 'Lord.'

So I guess that how slaves had to address their masters is simply an exception to one of his generalities and thus what life was like for slaves was seen merely as an exception and thus was not covered by Godfrey's depiction of life in America. The same could be said for some free Blacks, Native Americans, and women. Not that any had to call anyone 'Lord,' but the independence and freedom Godfrey described in America back in its past was not often experienced by those group of people. Thus Godfrey is presenting a white male, Christian centric view of American history. And he is doing that because his description of life in America back then as monolithic.

However, I could agree with Godfrey's assessment that Americans don't appreciate history like they should. And it isn't just the kids who don't fully appreciate American history. After all, just look at how many adults condemn in total the 1619 Project and CRT and work to prohibit them from being taught in our schools today.

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

Dec 17

To R. Scott Clark and his article against using a 17th century doxology in singing praise to God. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Having taught I believe that the mere repetition of text does not always show that one has learned its meaning. It's not until people put that text in their own words that the extent that real learning has taken place. So why not sing both from the Psalms, or the other Scriptures, and the 17th century Doxology as well as hymns written by Christians? Why employ an exclusive-or logic here?

I find the exclusive singing of Psalms to be motivated out of fear rather than faith. The exclusive singing of the Psalms or any parts of the Scriptures acts as a fence that guards us from singing wrong words and concepts. But it also acts as camouflage that can hide our hymns and songs show an adequate understanding of the Scriptures. Besides, unless we sing in the original languages of the Scriptures, we are going to sing wrong words anyway. Yes it limits it, but it is still the case.

Exclusive singing of the Psalms or the Scriptures is an attempt to avoid making mistakes some of which could lead slippery slopes. But it is also an attempt at perfectionism. And, as mentioned before, it can easily hide our misunderstanding of the text. I find it ironic that some people who liken wokeness to seeking justification by works can be so strict and legalistic about not using musical instruments or hymns in worship.