What Does The Iran War Tell l Us About Which Religion Is The Religion Of Peace

 Many of my fellow Christian friends often tell me that Christianity is the religion of peace while Islam is not. Of course, such claims are made with a selective use of both history and the present. And so I thought that we could compare the religions of the countries involved in the Iran War to see which religion is the religion of peace. 

We have 3 horse race here to determine the winner. We have Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Christianity will be represented by the U.S. Judaism will be represented by Israel. Islam will be represented by Iran, Pakistan, and the Gulf Coast Countries. Answers to the following questions will determine the winner(s). We should note that the answers are obvious.

What is the religion of the country that is currently engaged in ethnic cleansing of indigenous people from the land that it is trying to annex? 

What is the religion of the country that practices/sponsors a significant amount of terrorism? 

What is the religion of the country that has provided the most help in getting the current ceasefire talks started? 

What is the religion of the country or countries that have not retaliated after being attacked multiple times? 

What is the religion of the country that threatened the Pope?

What is the religion of the country/countries that has/have caused thousands of deaths and millions of displaced people in the recent war?

What is the religion of the nation that has broken multiple ceasefires?

What is the religion of the nation that has threatened a whole civilization?

What is the religion of the country/countries that has/have exercised the harshest suppression of its citizens?

In this 3 horse race, we have neither winners nor religions that even show. What we have is a religion that places. That religion is Islam. And so while many Americans brag about the Judeo-Christian values of America's founding, the current Iran War implies that such boasting is empty and, instead, should be a lament. And I am writing this as a religiously conservative Christian. I should add that though in this case, the nation that represents Christianity is hurting the reputation of Christianity, there are too many times where I have done the same with some of the decisions I have made.

Still,  how the U.S. and Israel are representing their respective religions is going a long way to discredit those religions on a national level. In terms of Christianity, Christendom did much to discredit Christianity in the eyes of many which contributed much to the birth of Critical Theory and Post Modernism. Who knows what reactions that the current representatives of Judaism and Christianity, represented by Israel and the U.S. respectively in this article, will produce in the future or perhaps the near future in different parts of the world including the in Israel and the U.S.?

What we should note about America's past actions is that they were done covertly as to give the impression that the American government cared about exhibiting the appearance of being concerned for international law. And so what was done in the shadows is now not only being done in the open, it is done with much arrogance.

Socialism Isn't Always In The Wheelhouse Of American Conservative Preachers

 If you want to learn what socialism is about, perhaps your last resource should be American conservative preachers. That is not to discourage anyone from listening or reading what they say about socialism. It is simply to say that their views of socialism are perhaps too tainted by their background and lack of exposure to give a full picture of what socialism is. An example of a preacher's inadequate background to define socialism can be found in the video that will be reviewed here (click here for the video and start at the 30 minute mark).

The presentation is on statism and socialism by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey (click here for a bio). I remember Godfrey from my days at Westminster Theological Seminary even though I never was in one of his classes. I admired his perspective on the Reformation and theology as well as the kind of person he presented himself to be. I still hold that same admiration and reasons for that should be evident by viewing the whole video.

But here is the problem that I have with what he said about socialism for the last 8 minutes of the video. His views of socialism seem largely colored by his life as a conservative American. He has a view of socialism from the outside, but even with my limited exposure to socialism, my view from the inside of socialism can see blind spots in his presentation.

The positive part of his comments on socialism is that he understands that socialism is not monolithic. That is because the word 'socialism' can have many different meanings. But he then at least partially counters what he just said by reducing socialism to this characteristic: socialism is where 'the state should own and operate the means of production for everyone.' Now at first, that doesn't seem to be misrepresenting socialism at all--at first that is. But from that, he synonymously says that government owns everything. And the problem here is that those two ideas are not only not synonymous, one can have those conditions without being socialistic. That is because there are other factors that qualify a system as being socialist than  what that one statement describes. That is especially true for Maxist Socialism.

So what is meant by the state must own the means of production to be a Socialist state. In the early 1950s, Iran's oil fields were owned and run by a British oil company. That meant that those who were profiting the most from Iran's oil fields was a private British company. By the some time in the 1940s, national sentiment favored the nationalization, which would be state ownership and management, of those oil fields. The pressure built when it was revealed that the U.S. had brokered a deal with Saudi Arabia that would give Saudi Arabia a bigger cut of the profits than what Iran was getting from the British. The British offered Iran a deal  but the deal did not include an increase in Iranian input managing the oil fields. Iran eventually elected a president who promised to nationalize the oil fields. Then the British sought to destabilize the nation in hopes of weakening the Iranian President's status. When that failed, England convinced the U.S. to join them in overthrowing the Iranian government. They succeeded and installed the Shah who ruled as dictator in 1953. His rule eventually resulted in the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and that has given us the Iran that we see today.

So what is the alternative to nationalizing a resource and industry? For Iran, the alternative was let another nation own one of its national resources so that the greatest profits went to the private sector of another nation.

However we should challenge Godfrey's parallelism here. Does the state owning and operating the means of production result in the state owning everything? And if the state does own and operate the means of production, is that automatically Socialism?

Here we should note that just because the state does own and operate the means of production for some resources and industries, that doesn't mean that the state owns everything. For example, for Iran during the 1950s, the nationalizing of oil fields only meant that the state would own and operate those oil fields and the government could disperse the profits of those oil fields to a greater portion of the population. So in such a case, the state would not own everything.

We should note that in the following year, when the elected Guatemalan President campaigned on introducing agrarian reform so that some of the land owned by a U.S. fruit company would be given out some of the people of Guatemala, the U.S. orchestrated a coup and replaced that President with brutal dictator in order to protect the interests of that fruit company. Did that mean that the state would own everything in Guatemala had the elected President been able to carry out his plan?

This is where we need to check out a quote from Eugene Debs who was a famous American socialist and actually ran for President in the early 1900s (click here for the source):

Private appropriation of the Earth’s surface, the natural resources, and the means of life is nothing less a crime than a crime against humanity, but the comparative few who are beneficiaries of this iniquitous social arrangement, far from being viewed as criminals meriting punishment, are the exalted rulers of society, and the people they exploit gladly render them homage and obeisance.

Is it socialist for a nation's government to nationalize its nation's natural resources? It can be. Does it make sense for a nation's government to want to nationalize a natural resource? It very much seems like a rational decision. But Venezuela has shown that such a decision doesn't always work out. And we should also note that such a decision does not result in the state owning everything.

From one Marxist perspective, whether state ownership of the means of production is socialist depends on two factors here. First, what are the demographics of those in the state who are managing a given industry? Second, is the structure of state ownership is vertical or horizontal?

The reason why the first question is important is because Marx believed in a proletariat dictatorship that would overthrow the oppression of the bourgeoisie (the wealthy owners). Thus, if the state isn't being run by the workers, then such an ownership would not make it a Marxist socialist venture. Marx was clear on that. For a venture to be Marxist, the workers would have to be in charge (click here to see how Noam Chomsky shows that Lenin did not install a Marxist Socialist state). 

Next we need to look at the structure of state control. Why? It is because a top-down structure is not a structure employed by Marxist socialism. Chomsky already pointed that out in his presentation previously mentioned. He noted that when Lenin destroyed the local soviets (a soviet was a workers' council where its members were democratically elected by their peers), he destroyed socialism in the Marxist tradition in Russia. Chomsky also explains why Lenin did that.

But then there is another factor to be included. This factor reinforces what Chomsky said, though it was written during the time of Lenin, and again shows the distinction between Marx's proletariat rule and as opposed to the rule of the Bourgeoisie (click here for the source):

Lenin and Trotsky, on the other hand, decide in favor of dictatorship in contradistinction to democracy, and thereby, in favor of the dictatorship of a handful of persons, that is, in favor of dictatorship on the bourgeois model...

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished.

It should be clear now that, from the Marxist tradition, state ownership of a part or all of production does not automatically result in Marxist Socialism. Not only must workers be in charge. Those workers must not model their structure of governance on the bourgeoisie model of a top-down organization. Conservative American Christian theologians have not often felt the need to look at some of the fine print of Marxist socialism to understand that. They seem content enough in using some of those nations that have called themselves Communist or Marxist as the standard for what Marxism is. And we shouldn't be hard on them for that. Martin Luther King Jr. made the same mistake when discussing Communism/Marxism in his book Stride Toward Freedom. 

There is something else about Marxist Socialism and government ownership of property. When Marx attacked private property, he wasn't attacking all private ownership of property or  private property per se. Rather, he was attacking the political power that some ownership of private property brings (click here):

Nevertheless, the political annulment of private property not only fails to abolish private property but even presupposes it. The state abolishes, in its own way, distinctions of birth, social rank, education, occupation, when it declares that birth, social rank, education, occupation, are non-political distinctions, when it proclaims, without regard to these distinction, that every member of the nation is an equal participant in national sovereignty, when it treats all elements of the real life of the nation from the standpoint of the state.

Here we should see that there are sufficient grounds for saying that Marxist Socialism isn't looking for the state to own everything. In fact, there are some European nations where the state has owned certain industries without owning everything. And we have seen the Socialism of such states, granted that they were not socialist states from the Marxist tradition, benefit the people of those nations. There is also sufficient grounds for saying that when a state does own and manage the means of production of all its industries, other criteria must be applied to determine whether that ownership and management qualifies a state as being called Marxist Socialist. 

We should also note that forms of Marxist Socialism have changed over the years. The form of which I am most familiar recognizes the need for hybrid attempts that combine Marxism with Capitalism--something Rosa Luxemberg would not approve of. I remember a video in which Marxist economist Richard Wolff talked about Germany's codetermination laws. Those laws require that a certain percentage of a company's executive board consist of workers who were elected by their peer. The percentage required depends on the number of employees in the company. Those laws just might make Germany the most Marxist state in the world.

Hybrid attempts at government that include ideas from Marx and Capitalism and other isms and ideologies have an advantage over other forms of government. That advantage is that such attempts presuppose that no political-economic ideology is omniscient. And thus we need the insights of a variety of ideologies to come up with solutions that help most of the people of a given nation without exploiting others. But those who listen to religiously conservative American preachers when they talk about Marx and Socialism would be leery of including Marx and Socialism in any mix of ideologies to better meet the political-economic needs of America.

Religiously conservative American Christian preachers, especially those who have always lived in America and were predominantly exposed to political conservatism, most likely have not studied Marx and Marxist Socialism enough to see the distinctions in big government or government ownership of property and Marxist Socialism. Because of their lack of exposure to Marx, they also would not be able to understand the differences between what Marx wrote and the governments that were Marxist in name only--such as the Soviet Union or China. 

And so rather than sound the alarm on Marxist Socialism, they perhaps would do better to call our attention to Church History over the past few centuries. For what that Church History reveals is that the dominant branch of the Church for many nations has all too often sided with wealth and power at the expense of the welfare of the people of those nations and consequently the reputation of the Gospel. And that fact should be included not just in the teaching of Church History, but in any discussion on Marxism and Socialism.

References

1. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/upholding-christian-ethics-2022-national-conference/statism-and-socialism
2. https://www.wscal.edu/academics/faculty/w.-robert-godfrey
3. https://www.azquotes.com/author/3810-Eugene_V_Debs    Look up Private appropriation quote
4. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/constitution/
5. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm
6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsC0q3CO6lM
7. 
   

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 January 25, 2023

 Jan 18

To Harrison Perkins and his article that reviews a collection of Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies on the continuity the Scriptures. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

My problem with the above article is not with references to Reformed doctrine and the contributions made in Church History, it is the pedestal on which we put those sources which is the problem. If the pedestal is too small, we end up refusing to learn from the past. But if the pedestal is too big, we make Reformed doctrine and selected contributions from Church History a canon above the canon with the latter canon being the Scriptures. This is precisely what the Pharisees did with their traditions as condemned by Jesus in Mark 7.

When we have a canon above the canon of the Scriptures and we start to depend on eisogesis when reading the Scriptures while the uninspired, that which is not God-breathed, becomes paramount in determining what is God-breathed can say. We need to realize the many mistakes made in Church History and how, unlike with the writing of the Scriptures, cultural and psychological and situational influences could partially corrupt how past Church History heroes misunderstood the Scriptures.

I understand the reluctance to part company with what has been said by many past Church History heroes. That reluctance stems from a fear that we will stray too far from the faith they proclaimed. But that potential problem is solved by distinguishing  the essential teachings of the Reformed faith from the non-essential teachings. It isn't that such distinction do not already exist; it is that not enough distinctions have been made.

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

Jan 19

To the Heidelblog and its reproduction of the Edict of the Emperors Grati, Valentinian II, and Theodosius I which made Christianity as the state religion in its time.

It seems that the plague of authoritarianism in Christianity goes back a long way. And authoritarianism doesn't have to be as extreme as what is portrayed above to damage and sabotage how we both live in the Church and carry out the Great Commission.

In addition, we can see some of where Calvin and Luther got their bombastic tendencies from.

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

Jan 22

To David Eisenberg and his article that defends the conservative notion of America from what he claims are the efforts by Democrats to imitate what was done in the French Revolution by destroying America's past and remaking the whole nation. This article was posted in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Comparisons depend on being selective in noting the similarities between objects. However, selectivity can be used to try to make comparisons that, for the point they are used to support, use incomparable objects. That is especially true when a small set of similarities are used to support generalizations. And that is the problem with comparing the French Revolutionaries with the democrats.

The democrats want to undo America? Really? Those of us who lean toward Marx don't believe that. Rather, we see more similarities between the Democrats and the Republicans  than between us and the Democrats. And that is despite the culture war issues on which we can agree with the Democrats. In the end, the Democrats, like the Republicans, believe in Capitalism and American Hegemony. The Democrats and the Republicans protect the wealthy from paying their fair share and they both support a malignantly high spending on defense, only part of which is in the DOD appropriations.

But let's get to the basic differences between the Democrats and today's Republicans. The Democrats also believe that government should protect its people from having their rights infringed on by elites in the private sector. Today's Republicans believe that only government can infringe on people's rights and thus their call for a "limited government" gives many elites in the private sector privileges that both only those elites have and that infringes on the rights of the people. The history of labor unions in this nation testifies to that as does the current battle to acknowledge climate change let alone do something about it. And the current battle over CRT in education shows that some Republicans believe in the overreach of government.

But more importantly, let's look at the key paragraph from this essay:

The truth is that for all its failings, America has provided more opportunity, security, and freedom to a group of people more diverse than any other nation in history. There is a reason why people come to these shores, why they risk and sacrifice so much in doing so, and why they have been doing so for centuries. It is not because America is systemically rotten; but because it is foundationallY good. Justice for all calls for those foundations to be defended, not destroyed. 

If America is judged good by how many people it has provided freedom to, then the America could not have always been judged to be good from its very beginning up through the days of the Civil Rights Movement.  And today's debate about racism is whether there is a systemic racism that continues to rob people of opportunities, security, and equality based on race--and one could include class here.

America provides more opportunity, security, and freedom now because those who lacked such had to either figuratively or literally fight, sometimes to the death, to obtain those things. And if we look at the government founded by The Constitution, we discover that it was founded in response to widespread dissent and actions, like Shays Rebellion, to protect America's then new elites from the anger of many common people. And note the continuity between many the contributors to The Constitution and today's Republicans: to orchestrate a government that protects the elites while ignoring many of the voices of the people.

While the above essay seems to see America's only fault as being the institution of slavery, it forgets that slavery was allowed and based on the belief in white supremacy. And that white supremacy survived the institution of slavery and what is being debated today is whether it has survived the Jim Crow era. And if we include other minorities, such as Native American, we see that Blacks were not the only victims of white supremacy. And that does not include the oppression of women, economic classism, and the oppression of the LGBT community in society.

What Do They Mean By A Religious Radical Here

Thanks to Roger Olson's blog on Patheos, which is one of the best, if not the best, Christian blogs on the internet, I read articles on two documentaries regarding American Evangelicals (click here and there).  Those articles two documentaries on American Evangelicals (click here for the first documentary) and the second documentary (click here for the documentary).

The first documentary gives a monolithic view of Evangelicalism and eventually covers a militia in Georgia made up of Evangelicals. It is when the documentary covers the militia group that the idea of fanatic comes into play. The second documentary gives a more balanced view of Evangelicalism even though it limits its coverage of Evangelicalism  to the Nashville, Tennessee area. In that documentary, fanaticism is associated with conservative social and political views including Christian Nationalism.

Because some Evangelicals are being called 'Christian Fanatics' in Olson's article, I wanted to give my take on the subject. For not all Evangelicals are religious fanatics, but too many are.

Here it might help to define what is a fanatic. But there is a problem there. The word 'fanatic' is often used as a pejorative to show disapproval of what a group believes and/or its actions. With both documentaries, Christian Fanatics are not only offended by abortion, but also by the growing presence of unbelievers. 

Also, what is considered to be fanatic or extreme is relative to the status quo and thus the criteria for determining what a fanatic is can be fluid over time. And so some who were considered to be fanatics in their own time period might no longer be called fanatics later on in time. In fact, the relationpship between what is fanatical and what is acceptable is comparable to the relationship between history revisionism and accepted history in that the value of either fanaticism or revisionism can be, in large part, determined by the perceived quality of what is acceptable or accepted history. So just as if the original historical accounts are bad, then  history revisionism can be good. so if what is acceptable is bad, then fanaticism can possibly be good.

So unfortunately, Christian fanatics today are identified by what they believe. But as just previously mentioned, what is fanatical is fluid and thus could change over time so that it could eventually become what is accepted regardless of how wrong it is.

Thus, I thought it might be helpful if we look at whom we consider to be  today's Christian fanatics and focus on their personal qualities that seem to be pushing them over the edge. And those personal qualities are shared by those Evangelicals from both documentaries.

The first personal quality or approach that is apparent in Christian fanatics is tribalism. The word 'tribalism' has several definitions and the definition I will be employing here describes tribalism has when a person has a strong degree of loyalty to a group regardless of what that group revolves around. Why tribalism is a problem here is because as one's group loyalty becomes too strong, one's sense of right and wrong changes from depending on more universal principles and values to that of who is doing what to whom. And so when group loyalty gets too strong,  that sense of morality becomes relative and eventually prevents one from being critical of one's own group.

Here it might be helpful to look at some of the traits that come with tribalism. We can use an article that was previously posted on the this blog to help (click here for the article). Those traits consist of conformity, a sense of superiority to others, a hostility toward both those outside the group and those who are different, and defensiveness. This last trait can be seen in the anticipation of hostility many Evangelicals have because there is a growing percentage of atheists or those who no longer accept traditional Christian values. Thus, many Christian Evangelicals, including those who we would not think of as being fanatics, are anticipating or even perceiving hostility from merely being in the presence of a higher percentage of unbelievers than in the past.

What those traits in tribalism help produce is a group authoritarianism and so we should note that authoritarianism was studied by the Frankfurt School, which I am told follows a Neo-Marxist school of thought. The reason why authoritarianism was being studied was in response to the German population's reaction and almost undying loyalty to Hitler and the Nazis. And much of that loyalty survived the horrific consequences that the German people had to experience because of Nazism. So here we should note that traits that authoritarianism adds to tribalism are the belief in power, having a negative view of people in general, and having a black-white worldview.

Another trait exhibited by those with an authoritarian personality type is to show hostility toward challenges to conventional beliefs. Considering that conventional beliefs are relative to one's ideological world, what we are seeing when exploring tribalism and authoritarianism is the source of fanaticism for some people. And when one looks at the documentaries side by side with a listing of the traits of tribalism and authoritarianism, it should be obvious that tribalism and authoritarianism can come into play in the making of a fanatic.

The problem for us religiously conservative Christians here then is to how to live the Christian life without becoming authoritarian either as a follower or a leader. That can be difficult because the Scriptures and a lot of conservative Christian teaching puts us in so many hierarchical relationships where we must follow authority figures. And so we must ask ourselves this question: How can we submit to the various authorities that the Scriptures tell us to submit to without becoming authoritarian either as a follower or a leader?

In addition, we are encouraged to almost solely rely on Christian teachers to digest the world for us. That is because these Christian teachers are trying to see the world from a biblical viewpoint. But it is also because we are discouraged from relying on worldly sources for learning about the world because such sources lack a biblical worldview. And so not only do we religiously conservative Christians have a penchant for authoritarianism, we also have one for tribalism.

It shouldn't be too difficult to put the above together to explain what we see in religious fanatics. The tribalism keeps people secluded in their groups. The black-white worldview allows those people to demonize those outside their group and thus further secluding them in their groups. That sets people up for adhering to conspiracy theories depending on the ideological or other group those theories emerge from and rejecting legitimate news sources. The demonization of others also feeds hostility towards those who challenge one's own group. The demonizing of others along with feeling superior to others feeds the sense of entitlement to try to rule over others.

But there is still one missing piece of the puzzle in creating a Christian religious fanatic. That missing piece is a tribalism but not one that is spiritually based, it is a tribalism that is worldly based. Groups that us religiously conservative Christians develop a tribal loyalty include America, conservative political ideology, conservative economic ideology, and conservative social ideology, and Western Civilization. It is tribal loyalty to Western Civilization that we see the introduction of the belief in white supremacy. 

Thus, if we religiously conservative Christians want to avoid becoming religious fanatics, we need to avoid tribalism and authoritarianism. That is we must avoid developing deep loyalties to any ideology, nation, a denomination's theology, or other-oriented group to avoid tribalism. That doesn't mean that we cannot have any loyalty to a group. But it does mean we can't afford to be so much loyal to any group that we become blind to its faults and sins. Once we are able to see the faults and weaknesses of each group to which we belong, we become less hesitant to learn from other groups and appreciate their strengths. To do that, we limit out much of the world we see in black-white terms.

 American Christianity is facing a crisis. That crisis is that it feels pushed into thinking that and responding to a nation that is increasingly secular. Considering that many religiously conservative Christians believe that the US started as a Christian nation and that is understandable. But understandable or not,  we cannot afford to respond to this growing secularity by circling the wagons and trying seize back control. Because we live in a democracy, we do have to learn how to exist and function as the Church while remain free of tribalism and authoritarianism.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 24, 2021

Sometime on or after March 17

 To R. Scott Clark’s quote from the WP that the Equality Act’s allows the gov’t to act without having  to shows that it has a compelling interest and Religious  rights. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I can't read the WP article on the bill because I lack a subscription to the paper, but I read the headline. And what is missing from Clark's above quote is any reference to the rights of the LGBT community, something not missing from the Post's article title. And such implies that Christians should be privileged over the LGBT community even when, according to Clark,  the LGBT community receives some respect.

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


March 24

To James Davenport and his article that tries to provide a conservative approach to cancel culture. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The fault that cancel culture has is not conceptual. Its fault is in its scope. Cancel culture has taken an all-or-nothing approach to addressing perceived  injustices. And in doing so, it has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. And it isn't just the "Left" that practices cancel culture, the "Right" does too. One only has to think of Trump's response to athletes who kneeled at the playing of the National Anthem to see that. Cancel culture was practiced by Rush Limbaugh's all-or-nothing tirades against non-conservatives. Cancel culture is about using marginalization as punishment in order to silence someone. And that is what Rush Limbaugh's show was all about.

Thus, to reject everything cancel culture practices and to deduce that it has no merit and must be opposed, let alone ignore, is to be a participant in cancel culture. After all, cancel culture is cancel culture no matter one's size or ideology.

The cancel culture being objected to  in the above article is the cancel culture practiced by the "Left." Why the objection? It is because the Left challenges Western Civilization which many conservatives strongly associate with Christianity. And thus those conservatives  see an attack on Western Civilization as an attack on Christianity. And that is seen in the above article by the predictions of future, and even present, persecution. In addition, those who are privileged are sensitive to significant criticisms of any context in which they have grown up.

If we can get by the sensitivities to criticism, we can both learn from and correct cancel culture as it is now. Otherwise, we will just become a unwitting member of it by rejecting everything it has to say.

Losing One's Faith When Sving One's Land

An important personal friend and fellow activist, Rita Corriel, wrote the best analysis of Israel which I have ever come across. In her 2003 article, she claims that in obtaining and securing the Promised Land, those in Israel who support how their government treats the Palestinians have lost their faith (click here for the article). Why is that the case? It is because in obtaining and securing the Promised Land, they made it into a physical idol and thus have had to regard and treat the Palestinians as less than human because they are see as obstacles to the worship of that idol. We should note that that phraseology of Palestinians being less than human was never quoted or cited either in her article or any article I've read which support today's Zionism. But here, actions speak louder than words.

So because the Promised Land has become an object of idol worship, that which was essential to the spirit of Judaism is being  sacrificed. And in how Israel treats the Palestinians, Corriel contends that Israel has learned more from its oppressors than from the 'experience of being oppressed.' And that is true because the way the Promised Land has been worshiped and secured indicates that 'Never Again' does not apply to everyone, especially to those who get in one's way. So she contrasts Israel's treatment of the Palestinians with how the 'Righteous Gentiles,' those Gentiles who chose to shield European Jews from the Nazi Holocaust. She contrasts the Zionist idea of being chosen with the Righteous Gentiles who put their humanity and their following of Universal Law above any other allegiance including their national identity.

One of her strongest points is that in Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, Israel has decided to turn a deaf ear to the world rather than the world turning against Israel. And thus a significant amount of the criticism that Israel receives from the world is not because Israel's Judaism, but because of its lack of Judaism as demonstrated in how it treats the Palestinians.

Now either we could focus solely on Israels' sins here, or we could look into a mirror of truth to see if we have either imitated Israel's sins or we have already set a precedent for Israel's approach to the Promised Land. For there is one thing we should note about Israel's sins against the Palestinians, and yes I know that the Palestinians are not innocent either, that is that Israel's sins are NOT sins peculiar to the Jewish people as defined either religiously or ethnically. Instead, they sins that been practiced by people of other ethnic groups and religious faiths.

To illustrate how Israel's sins against the Palestinians are sins that any group of people could commit or imitate to varying degrees, we Christian Americans can look at our history to see how we share the moral weaknesses demonstrated in how Israel approaches its Promised Land. For from our beginning, many of our national and religious forefathers viewed themselves as a then modern version of Old Testament Israel. Thus they viewed the land as the Promised Land and the indigenous people who lived here as the Canaanites. Our national and religious forefathers thus felt entitled to a land that belonged to others and they did so based on a belief in their own moral and religious superiority. And neither the Native Americans nor the Africans slaves whom they had kidnapped and shipped here were never seen as fully human, as fully equal.

Whereas escaping brutal anti-Semitism and the belief in Zionism became driving forces for some European Jews to pursue the Promised Land, escaping religious persecution caused Christians to come here and their belief in white supremacy eventually created and carried out the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. And here we should note that our fellow Americans who are Black are still trying to obtain a full equality with White Americans.

But there is another parallel here with the analysis Corriel gave of Israel. Many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians claim that America was founded as a Christian nation and are fighting what they perceive as America losing that identity. If we suppose that is true, then we have to wonder whether America has become our physical idol since history shows how we have devalued Native Americans and Blacks in building America and have devalued the LGBT community in our most recent attempt to maintain America as a Christian nation. Thus we have to wonder whether we have sacrificed our faith on the alter of our nationalism.

Certainly Corriel's view of Judaism is different from how many of us religiously conservative Christians have been taught to see Judaism. And part of  her view of spirituality goes against the grain of what we have been taught in Church. But her analysis of Israel's Zionism is the best I've seen and should be read by all. And the similarities we American Christians have in how we have treated others with how Israel has treated the Palestinians raise a host of red flags about the consistency in which we have lived out our faith here.


 

Ignorance Is A Terrible Witness

Any casual discussion on Critical Theory must first come to grips with its own seemingly contradictory existence. Critical Theory is a very dense and deep topic so how could a casual discussion of it exist? And any casual discussion on Critical Theory must immediately acknowledge the difference between Critical Theory and critical theory. The former refers to a specific group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt School while the latter refers to opposition to domination and oppression inspecific circumstances where that opposition has a 'similar practical aim' as what was taught by those in the Frankfurt School (click here and refer to the first 3 paragraphs). 

Neil Shenvi (click here for a bio) and Pat Sawyer (click here for his cv) recently wrote an article posted in the Gospel Coalition website called The Incompatibility Of Critical Theory And Christianity (click here for the article). We should note that the article posted in the Gospel Coalition website is just another article written on Critical Thinking by both of these men.



The first thing we should note is that there are two versions of Critical Theory. There is Critical Theory in the narrow sense. That sense involves the thinking and teachings of those known as the Frankfurt School. And there is critical theory in the broader sense. That sense deals opposition to specific kinds of oppression provided that there is a general following of the philosophical and practical aims Critical Theory by that opposition. A noteworthy difference between the narrow sense and the broad sense of critical thinking is that the narrow sense of the term capitalizes the first letter of each part of the term while the broader sense does not.
 
The second thing we should note is that the title is both contradicted by parts of the article and says more that it is intended to. The title is potentially contradicted by the article's recognition of individual points made by Critical Theory. Those points include:

• Race is a social construct
• Institutions can spread ideas

At the same time, what is suggested by saying that Critical Theory and Christianity are incompatible depends in part by the word 'incompatible.' If that word is taken in its absolute sense, then noting some points of agreement with Critical Theory contradicts the title. Otherwise, the two writers are merely saying that there are too many difference between Christianity and Critical Theory for Christians to adopt or embrace a significant part of Critical Theory.

But there is something else that needs to be said here. The degree to which Christians can borrow from Critical Theory depends not as much on the Scriptures, as the writers seem to indicate, but on how Christians believe they should share a democratic society with unbelievers. If Christians believe that their faith or even themselves should hold a place of supremacy over society then the writers of this article are correct in saying that Critical Theory and Christianity are incompatible. That is because Critical Theory and Christianity work from different metanarratives and advocates of both sets of beliefs would be vying for society to be based on.

But what if Christians looked to share society with unbelievers as equals. Then society would be based on a collaboration of the thinking of Christianity, provided that the borrowed beliefs neither privileges a group nor oppresses any groups, and the views of unbelievers. Christians would then not be placed in this competitive role of trying to establish any part of Christianity to rule over society. We could be more relaxed in terms of what we borrow from other ideologies like Critical Thinking.

The Gospel Coalition website belongs to a group of Christians who are called Transformationalists. That to varying degrees, transformationalists want a place of supremacy for Christians by which they can control laws and cultural values according to our religious beliefs--I am a religiously conservative Christian and so I share their beliefs but not their desire to control. As a result, the notion of Christians sharing society as equals, which would be its role in Critical Theory's notion of a 'substantive democracy,' is truly foreign to Transformationalists. Even their Christian nemesis, 2KT advocates who disagree with the Transformationalists' thirst for control over society struggle with wanting to share society with unbelievers as equals.

The writers of the article are correct in noting that the metanarratives of Critical Theory and Christianity are different. But here we should note two things. First, that when society and culture were based on a Christian metanarrative, we had a great deal of domination and oppression. Second, a false metanarrative doesn't always lead to conclusions Christians can't accept. This leads us back to the point that how much Christians can feel comfortable in borrowing from ideologies like Critical Thinking depends on how we believe we should share society with others.

It should also be pointed out that the degree to which Christians can borrow from or embrace Critical Thinking is also partially controlled by the other ideologies that we hold to other than our faith. Those ideologies include Capitalism, belief in small government, Republican political thought, and American Exceptionalism. Those who grew up in religiously conservative Christian homes found those secular ideologies to be conflated with their Christian faith. And thus separating the ideologies one grew up with from one's faith can be a very tearing experience. So the degree to which one can borrow from or embrace Critical Theory might be, in the name of one's religion, controlled more by a Christian's secular beliefs than his or her religious beliefs.

We should also note that the New Testament never seems to endorse any kind of Christian control over society. That doesn't mean that Christians have no place in determining society's morals and values. Such a point doesn't silence Christians in society. What that point does is to limit how Christians share society with others to of being equals. 

No short article, such as the one written by Shenvi and Sawyer can adequately give an overview of Critical Theory. But that is the least of the problems that this article on Critical Theory written by Shenvi and Sawyer has. In the end, articles like the one commenting on Critical Theory sometimes reveal more about the Christian doing the reviewing the theory being reviewed. And I believe that has occurred in the article written above.

Why Does The Masterpiece Cake Case Make Christians Look Bad?

James Coffin, a member of the Christian clergy, tried to answer the question posed in the title of this article (click here for his article). And though his article posed an excellent observation, he zeroes in on the wrong set of factors to support his observation.

For Coffin focused on in his article was the usual religious rules and judgmentalism that is rightly attributed to religiously conservative Christians. That is what Coffin lamented over his past self in how he would treat and view others. And though judgmentalism should never have a place in Christianity, the following of some religious rules is necessary to living out the Christian faith.

So while Coffin makes a sincere effort to show why the Masterpiece Cake case can't help the Christian cause regardless of the what the judges find, I believe Coffin misses the main reasons here.

To show why the Masterpiece Cake case hurts the credibility of religiously conservative Christians, we must first cite, and then modify, an old religious saying that said the following: 'One is too heavenly minded to be any earthly good.' We start with that statement, but we have to modify it because it does not tell us why the Masterpiece Cake case hurts the Christian cause. The necessary modification of the old saying is stated below.

One is too inwardly directed to have any outward awareness.

The problem with the refusal by Masterpiece's owner, Jack Phillips, to custom design a wedding cake for  same-sex wedding is more about the owner's concern with whether his artistic talents are being used to help celebrate what he thinks is sin than how his decision affects others. In other words, the real problem for Christians doesn't have to do with anything else than with our lack of awareness for how others experience our decisions. For how others experience our decisions to not to provide goods and services in a business setting for the LGBT community as we would the heterosexual community is that of being picked on and discriminated against. And in a Post Modern world, those who are being discriminated against are not the only ones to perceive the apparent injustices that are going on. For Post Modernism has made us aware and sensitive to marginalization of certain groups as well vigilant against against other groups.

Thus, those who attempt to marginalize others and/or seize some degree of control over society have already set off the alarms in many people's minds. And those alarms cause our current Post Modern generations to throw out the baby outwith the bathwater. For, according to Post Modernism, if a premise can be misused to abuse others, the premise must be false. So if the belief that homosexuality is contrary to the Scriptures causes some Christians to try to marginalize the LGBT community, then, according to Post Modernism, the premise must be false. Such is an unfortunate conclusion.
 
Now because these Christians who are attempting to remarginalize the LGBT community are too preoccupied with the public stand they are taking and preserving their own purity, they fail to notice how others are reacting to them. But not only that, many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians lack any awareness of how those in the LGBT community have suffered from past marginalization. And why do these Christians lack awareness of how some have suffered and how others perceive them? It is because these Christians are too preoccupied with proving themselves to themselves.

The overt inward directedness displayed by many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians disables them from seeing life as how others see it. That is because the stronger one's inward directedness, the weaker one's vision of the world becomes. And the weaker one's vision of the world becomes, the less they can understand about how the world is responding.


 

ONIM For April 2, 2018

10 Best Fact Checking Sites Found Here.

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.

Christian News

• Thoughts From A Black Reformer -- Witness: A Black Christian Collective
• Confronting Pharaoh: Why We Won't Go Quietly -- Witness: A Black Christian Collective
• Of Pastors And Presidents -- Religion News Service
• The Beautiful, Terrible Cross -- Felix Culpa
• White Conservatives And Christianophobic Progressives -- Shattering Paradigms
• Does Hell Exist? Pope Francis Says No In New Interview That Could Change Catholic Church Forever -- Newsweek
• In An Age Of Trump And Stormy Daniels, Evangelical Leaders Face Sex Scandals Of Their Own -- Washington Post
• If God So Loved The World, Why Is The West So Special? -- Old Life

World News

• Florida Cops Laundered Millions For Drug Cartels, Failed To Make A Single Arrest -- Forbes
• Rep. Steve King's Campaign Ties Parkland's Emma Gonzales To 'Communist' Cuba -- Washington Post
• Teachers Can't Afford Miami Rents. The County Has A Plan: Let Them Live At School -- Miami Herald
• Bolton Was Early Beneficiary Of Cambridge Analytica's Facebook Data -- New York Times
• Noah Berlatsky: The GOP's Attack On The Sanctity Of The Vote -- Morning Call
• Lawyer: 2nd Officer Should Stay On Police Force -- Dothan Eagle
• March On Harrisburg Barnstorms Across Pennsylvania To Restore Democracy -- Waging Nonviolence
• Doctors Tell Rick Santorum That CPR Won't Save AR-15 Victims In School Shootings -- Penn Live
• Parkland Student Protesters Become Right-Wing Targets -- Yahoo News
• In First Trip Abroad, North Korea's Kim Warmly Received In China -- Boston Globe
• Could Artificial Intelligence Soon Become Conscious? -- World Economic Forum
• Kentucky Teen Used Money Mom Gave Him For A Tattoo To Buy AR-15 To Shoot Up School, Police Say -- Fox News
• A Thirteen-Year-Old Boy Said He Wanted To Be The Next School Shooter And 'Kill Lots Of Kids,' Police Say -- Time
• Why Some Americans Are Risking It And Skipping Health Insurance -- Bloomberg
• Ex-Trump Campaign Manager Manafort Seeks To Dismiss Virginia Charges -- Reuters
• Nobel Secretary Regrets Obama Nobel Peace Prize -- BBC
• The Second Amendment Was Never Meant To Protect An Individual's Right To A Gun -- Nation
• Anti-Pipeline Campaigners Found Not Guilty By Judge Because 'Protest Against Climate Change Crisis' Was Legal 'Necessity' -- Indpendent
• Trains, Flights Grounded As Strikes Challenge Macron Across France -- Reuters
• Memory, Identity, And Patriotism -- First Things
• U.S. Almost Attacked Russians In Syria Again But Moscow Stepped In, Mattis Says -- Newsweek
• 'ACLU Effect' Is To Blame For Chicago's Sharp Rise In Crime, Study Says -- Fox News
• French Policeman Who Died After Replacing A Hostage Is Honored In National Tribute -- Yahoo News
• The Psychology Of Fake News -- NPR
• Arizona Teachers Demand 20 Percent Raises, More Money For Students -- Arizona Central
• Student Charged With Making Threat Against Delco High School -- 6 Action News 
• U.S. Banks Provide Rescue Financing For Gunmaker Remington -- Reuters
• Pilots Report Close Encounters With UFO Over Arizona -- ABC News
• Lauren Hogg Asks Melania Trump For Comment While Brother Gets 'Cyberbullied' By Laura Ingraham -- Newsweek
• Christie: EPA Chief Woes Show WH Transition Failure -- Yahoo News
• Texas Woman Voted Illegally In 2016 Election, Gets Sentenced To Five Years In Prison -- Newsweek

Israel-Palestine News

• Israel "Drastically Escalates" Destruction Of EU-Funded Energy Projects -- Electronic Intifada
• Hamas Prepares For Mass Rallies Along Gaza-Israel Border -- Miami Herald
• Gazans Pitch Tents On Israel Border As Tensions Mount -- Yahoo News
• Palestinians Angered By U.S. Plan To Cut U.N. Aid By More Than Half -- UPI
• Clashes As Thousands Of Gazans March Toward Israel Border -- Yahoo News
• 15 Palestinians Killed In Clashes On Gaza Border -- Boston Globe
• B'Tselem: Gaza Not "Combat Zone", Shooting At Demonstrators A Crime -- B'Tselem
• Palestinians Hold Day Of Mourning After 773 'Shot With Live Ammunition' -- Guardian
• UN Leader Calls For Investigation Into Deadly Gaza Clashes -- AP News
• Congress Cutting Aid To Palestinians Over Controversial Stipend Practice -- NPR
• Census: 4.78M Palestinians In Lands Israel Captured In 1967 -- Fox News
  

Donald Trump News

• How Trump Favored Texas Over Puerto Rico -- Politico
• Trump Eyes Having The U.S. Military Pay For His Border Wall -- Yahoo News
• Trump Plans Expulsion Of Russian Envoys Over U.K. Attack -- Bloomberg
• Trump Moves To Open Nearly All OffShore Waters To Drilling -- New York Times
• Trump Loses First Skirmish In Suit Over D.C. Hotel Profits -- Bloomberg
• Trump Appointed Bolton Because Republicans Desperately Needed Adelson's Money -- Mondoweiss
• Irked Trump Reportedly Warned Putin: We'd Win The Arms Race -- Huffington Post
• White House On Police Shootings Of African-Americans: It's a 'Local Matter' -- Huffington Post

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• What Was The Vietnam War About? -- New York Times
• Puerto Rico Mental Health Crisis On The Rise Six Months After Hurricane Maria -- Weather Channel
• Indigenous Communities Carry On Berta Carcéras' Work By Defending Nature And Health Care In Honduras -- Waging Nonviolence
• North Korea Says 'Danger Of War Is Increasing' Because Of U.S. Weapons Being Sold Around The World -- Newsweek
• U.S. Soldier Admits Killing Unarmed Afghans For Sport -- Guardian
• 'Ignorance' Feeds Anti-Semitism In The Arab World -- Religion News Service
• Russia Warns Of New Cold War After Mass Expulsion Of Diplomats -- Newsweek
• Don't Mess With Nuclear Russia, Putin Says -- Reuters
• India Is Most At Risk From Climate Change -- World Economic Forum
• Commentary: Anti-Semitism Is A Deal Breaker -- Orlando Sentinel
• Killed In Cold Blood: Alton Sterling's Family Decries Decision Not To Charge Officers For Murder -- Democracy Now
• New Videos Shows Clearest Account Of Alton Sterling's Killing -- News & Obvserver
• Big Money As Private Immigrant Jails Boom -- NPR
• Kentucky Off-Duty Police Officer Shot And Killed By Police Impersonator, Authorities Say -- CNN
• Stephon Clark Was Shot Six Times In The Back By Police, Independent Autopsy Finds -- Los Angeles Times
• Anti-Semitic Murder Of Elderly Woman Triggers Calls For Paris Protests -- NBC News
• A 'Hellish World': The Mental Health Crisis Overwhelming America's Prisons -- Guardian

Just For Fun

• NRA Proposes Having Second Armed Teacher In Every Classroom To Stop First Armed Teacher From Misfiring -- Barowitz Report
• Vladimir Putin Concedes Defeat In Pennsylvania Special Election -- Barowitz Report
• Rex Tillerson: I Hope Trump Finds Out He's Impeached On Twitter -- Barowitz Report
• Report: Most Parents Willing To Entrust Children To Anyone In Character Costume -- Onion
• EPA Rolls Back Emission Standards To Increase Consumer Choice Over Type Of Apocalyptic Hellscape Earth Will Become -- Onion
• Trump Projected To Be Last Remaining Member Of White House By 2 P.M. Tomorrow -- Babylon Bee
• Middle-Earth Announces Heavy Tariffs On Narnian Imports -- Babylon Bee

 

Some Christians Are Already On A Fooll's Mission

William Donohue (click here for a bio), who is an old-school Catholic religious activist and President of the Catholic League, has just written an article in reaction to a poll that shows that in a number of nations, more people see religion as being more of a threat than a resource. This is particularly true in European nations. There are some exceptions to that view however,  The people of Japan disagreed with perception despite the fact that Japan is not a strongly religious country (click here for the article).

One of the countries that has one of the highest rates of disapproval of religion was Belgium. And one of Donohue's responses to their poll numbers was to examine the moral state of the nation. Some of the criteria used by Donohue include the following: out-of-wedlock birthrate, rate of people who join Islamic terrorists, and the rate of assisted suicide with the claim that those with mental illnesses or autism are 'routinely' killed. BTW, when reviewing the stories on assisted suicide in Belgium, I didn't see confirmation of that last claim.  I did see it stated that a certain suffering from mental illness could qualify one to successfully apply for assisted suicide. And interesting enough was a story about how some people from other nations go to Belgium in order to undergo assisted suicide.

Before examining Belgium, Donohue listed a number of traits that are less pronounced in the religious than the non-religious. They include:

• depression
• suicide
• juvenile delinquency
• crime
• STDs 

Donohue goes on to claim that Jude-Christian values are essential to the 'personal and social well-being in Western nations. And thus he attempts to discredit the poll numbers. In addition, he goes on to say that if one gives up on Christianity, one must surrender a morality that is necessary for a well-functioning society.

Though Donohue might have some valid individual points to make, his old-school authoritarianism has blinded him to why a growing number in the West see religions as posing more of a threat to society than a service to it. In other words, there is a morality that has been missing in Christianity. Europe's religious wars might have clued Dononhue in on the fact that the filter he used in measuring a nation's moral state was too small. In addition, Western Imperialism, which flourished while both America and Europe were still considered to be predominantly Christian nations, seems to contradict Donohue's perceived cause and effect relationship between Christianity and morality. And none of that includes America's persecution of people of color whether its victims consisted of Native Americans,  Blacks, or people of color from other nations most of which occurred while America could be considered a Christian nation. What was also left behind was  Conservative Christianity's support for the exploitive economic system called Capitalism.


In other words, while focusing solely on pet individual sins that religiously conservative Christians love to target, Donohue appears to be able to make a point. But once we get into the realm of Western Civilization's history with committing what has been called 'corporate sins,'  we see that morality does not always follow Christianity just as Israel's treatment of the Palestinians shows that morality does not always follow Judaism. And it is corporate sins that probably has nations like Belgium perceiving Christianity as being more of a threat than a resource.

A Fair Conservative Christian Look At Socialism

If you look at any modern, religiously conservative Christian critique of Socialism, what you will get is a politically skewed interpretation. In addition, most religiously conservative reviews of Socialism I've read treat Socialism as a monolith and prefer to use "Leftist" political failures from the past as warnings to any inclination to try Socialism in the future. One only needs to read the appeals against following Bernie Sanders' socialist claims to see evidence for this.

But a fair, though not perfect, assessment of Socialism from a Fundamentalist point of view is available if you are willing to go old school. Charles R. Erdman (click here for a bio) wrote an essay called The Church And Socialism for the multi volume set called The Fundamentals (click here for info). The Fundamentals contains a collection of essays written from 1910 to 1915. We should note that Erdman's essay was written prior to the Russian Revolution of October, 1917 (click here for Erdman's essay).

Yes, Erdman's essay contained some erroneous notions  of Socialism. And considering that because Socialism has gone through some changes since the 1910s, Erdman's essay needs updating, Still Erdman provides an excellent example of how to write a fair assessment of an ideology with which one disagrees.

How does Erdman show integrity in his evaluation of Socialism? Quite simply, Erdman both makes distinctions between the various kinds of Leftist thought known to him at the time and he clearly presented the legitimate concerns that Socialism addresses. If only modern conservative Christian leaders would write such honorable critiques of different faiths and ideologies that compete with their own faith, conservative Christianity would be held in higher esteem than it is now. For it seems that one of the most common complaints about today's religiously conservative Christians is that we lack objectivity and a sense of fairness when evaluating different perspectives.

When reading Erdman's essay, we easily observe how he distinguished Socialism from Anarchism, Communism, and Popular Socialism. It might be that he had Bolshevism in mind when discussing Popular Socialism's hostility to religion. For it was Lenin, a Bolshevist, who strongly denounced religion by calling it the 'opium of the people.' Lenin said that because the religion of his day, the Orthodox branch of the Christian Church to be specific, told workers to suffer through being exploited while it told business owners that individual acts of charity could make up for exploiting one's employees (click here for source). Because we Christians embrace a spiritual ideology (a.k.a., theology), we might assume that Lenin said those things from an ideological perspective. I believe that Lenin's analysis of religion (a.k.a.,  a form of conservative Christianity) came from observation. Such presents the Church with serious indictments.

Erdman's notes Socialism's concern with righting wrongs when he writes:

because the strength of Socialism consists largely in its protest against existing social wrongs

and 

Socialism is, however, something else than a scientific economic theory, or a popular materialistic philosophy, it is a serious protest against the social wrongs and cruelties of the age, against the defects of the present economic system, against special privilege and entrenched injustice, against prevalent poverty, and hunger, and despair. It is not always an intelligent protest. 

Early in his essay, Erdman describes socialism as consisting of big government, collective ownership, and an abolition of private capital rather than private property. Erdman notes that Socialism's keeping of private property distinguishes it from Communism. But here, we need to distinguish between Socialism and Socialism in the Marxist tradition. For in the Marxist tradition, who was leading the government is more important than the size of government. Thus, without the 'proletariat dictatorship,' we have no socialism. This is a point that Erdman missed. In addition, for Marx, the abolition of say religion or private capital exists when these entities do not control the laws passed by government. So though both religion and private capital can exist, if common men can pass laws that govern them, then they have been abolished in a real sense. This also points to Marx's concern with who is in control of government.

Now Erdman is correct in how he both criticizes Popular Socialism for its hatred of those with wealth and in mentioning that many Socialists do not follow the lead of Popular Socialism in that regard. Erdman's criticism of Popular Socialism on this point could be, though I am not sure it was, grounded in the parable of the two men praying where the one who proclaims himself to be righteous looks down at the publican who was counted as being the worst sinner in society during Jesus's time. 

However, Erdman overstates his case when he criticizes Popular Socialism and Socialism when it relies on the elevation of society as a way of improving people. Erdman clearly states that the Christian approach here is that the only way to improve society is by regenerating its individuals first. But there is no theological justification for saying that. It would be one thing to say that regeneration is required to bring people into the Kingdom of God. It is quite another to say what Erdman said. For we are, in part, a product of our surroundings. This is why conscientious parents work hard to provide the kind surroundings that will help their children to become decent people. What Erdman says about the necessity of regenerating indviduals to improve society is nothing more than claiming that Christianity has a monopoly on improving people.

Erdman is correct in criticizing Christian Socialism as being neither Christian nor Socialism. And here we need to heed his warning because a temptation for Christians who are Socialists is to let their ideology at least partially define their Christianity. However, The Church, while not backing any particular political party or ideology, should speak prophetically to the injustices that result from the policies of any political party or ideology. For it is one thing for the Church to observe and speak out against injustices carried out by governments and in the name of ideologies, it is quite another to say this is the political ideology that the Scriptures tell us to pursue.

Overall, Erdman sees Socialism and Christianity as operating on two different spheres. He is strongly opposed to Popular Socialism but he is not necessarily against the idea of Christians being Socialists provided that they don't mix them together too much. Erdman was not a Socialist. And again, he opposes the idea of a Christian Socialism even though he notes that both Christians and Socialist can share some concerns.

Erdman says many other things on Christianity and Socialism which are well worth reading. But what we should note most of all is what was pointed to at the beginning. That is Erdman is fairn when dealing with the subject of Socialism. His fairness does not imply that he was always correct in his statements about it. But his fairness does provide an excellent example for the rest of us Christians to follow when we are evaluating the ideologies of different believers as well as unbelievers.