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

 Feb 8

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

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

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

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

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

Feb 11

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

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

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

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

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

Feb 12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 22, 2020

April 21

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that uses, almost exclusively, the Heidelberg Catechism and its author, Zacharias Ursinus, to talk about why we should be sanctified and do good works. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

The above is a sign that, like the Pharisees referred to in Mark 7, our traditions are replacing God's Word. For it is easy to note that the above article uses a confession to primarily inform us of what we need to know about sanctification and doing good works. And that the motivation has been reduced to just that of being thankful. But is there other reasons that should draw us to sanctification and doing good  than gratefulness?

Here we should note I Cor 13:13 here:

But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

We should note the word, and concept of, 'love' here because it only occurs once in the above article. It does not occur in the above article when discussing sanctification and doing good to others. And that despite the fact that being sanctified involves bearing the fruit of the spirit and love is the first fruit mentioned, it is mentioned only when discussing the law. And yet, Paul places love above faith and hope.

I understand why we should be sanctified and do good works because of thankfulness. After all, we are doing good acts without even thinking that we can use them to win God's favor. Thus, being thankful is very important. Everything we have is because of God's great mercy, in forgiving our sins and sparing us from His wrath, and grace, seen in how every blessing from Him is unmerited. The problem here isn't that being thankful is involved with why we submit to sanctification, the problem is that our response to God in how we treat Him and others is reduced to thankfulness.

With being told that we are new creatures in Christ, one would think that with love being placed higher than faith and hope, as stated in I Cor 13, and with love being the first fruit of the Spirit mentioned in Galatians, that another motivation we have for being sanctified and doing good to others is because we, in the midst of being  changed, now have a love for God and for our neighbor, regardless of who imperfect that love is, which we did not have before. Thus, love becomes a motivation for why we do what we do.

We should note that while being thankful does speak to others, too much emphasis on being thankful does not necessarily challenge us to be less self-absorbed, love does. And in becoming less centered on ourselves and more concerned with God and with others, we naturally do more good works than if we are spiritually self-absorbed.

Now the absence of the idea that love becomes a reason for being sanctified could be because unlike guilt, grace, and gratitude, the word 'love' does not begin with the letter 'g.'  In reality, the absence of that word despite its importance in the New Testament is because we have gone too much to a confession of faith, a tradition if you will, to learn about this essential part of our new lives rather than going first and foremost to the Scriptures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Chuck Chalberg and his article on C.K. Chesterton’s view of science and its experts. Chesterton felt that many earthly decisions should be decided on by some kind of ‘jury system’ rather than by scientific experts. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative website.

If you have successfully made it out of cancer surgery, one has more respect for science than Chesterton showed. It isn't that scientists don't have a lane to stay in, it is whether we will stay in our lane when we lack the proper respect for science. And his jury system analogy simply shows cutting off science in its lane in too many instances.  But I sense a turf battle in Chesterton's reaction to science.

From climate change to coronavirus, there are some conservatives who have no respect for science and thus have not stayed in their own lane. Thus they automatically speak as fools. It isn't that what scientists say is infallible. It is that if you are going to contradict them, then you better know what you are talking about. Going back to my cancer treatment, there was some medical advice regarding post surgery diet that did not work. But I didn't leave it up to a jury as to what to do. Rather, I simply went to another scientific lane to change my diet for the better.

Comments Which Conservtaives Block From Their Blogs For April 25, 2018

April 22

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how to unreservedly embrace patriotism. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

I am confused as to why one would want to brag about being patriotic. If the ideal and real America are too different, then the real America is seen as a failure or even a delusional attempt at creating a utopia. But if the ideal and real America are too similar, then whether one celebrates America or not depends on the privileges one's own group enjoys or is deprived of.

When one looks at the evidence, then one finds that history points to the ideal and real America being more similar than different. A rebellion against a founding empire allowed domestic elites to replace foreign elites as leaders of a nation just born. But when dissent and Shays Rebellion occurred a few years later, domestic elites refused to allow those who were resisting to follow the path set by those elites. And thus The Constitution was written. For in that document, the federal government was made more powerful partially so that it could better put down future insurrections. Just look at all of the instances of the word 'militia' is mentioned in The Constitution and the Bill of Rights to see evidence of this view.

From a Christian perspective, it seems to me that patriotism is just another religion that worships one's own group--especially when one's own group enjoys privilege over others, And thus for the Christian, embracing patriotism leads one into practicing polytheism. And here we should note what Paul wrote about his belonging to a group that was, in the past, chosen to be God's very own people (see  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=philippians+3%3A1-11&version=NASB  ):

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Note all that Paul counts as loss because of the superior significance that belonging to  Christ involves. For he not only counts as loss his own achievements, but whatever identities he could claim from being a member of the tribe of Benjamin and being the cream of the crop of the chosen race of the Hebrews. And he does so to show that all his confidence is exclusively in Christ. All other confidence is leads to pride.

So why should we be so eager to embrace patriotism? Isn't the significance we gain from belonging to Christ enough?

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

April 24

To Rev. Ben Johnson and his blogpost that reviewed an article that claimed that the religious interest of people negatively correlated with the existence of effective government assistance programs. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Besides the fact that conclusions that are at the end of any scientific article are nothing more than the writers' interpretations of the data, Rev. Johnson sounds defensive. And the zenith of his defensiveness is exhibited in his following statement:

Philanthropy comes near the end of a longer process of conversion – after the person has personally accepted Jesus Christ’s unconditional love and mercy, seen Christ in his neighbor, and reacted accordingly.

Such a statement logically implies that only Christians  engage in philanthropy. That claim  is easily disproven by a single counterexample, let alone the many counterexamples that could easily be provided.

Likewise, his defensiveness is also shown in the statement below:

When private individuals set their hand to philanthropic works, the results are more effective and longer lasting than government programs. A sense of entitlement and the bureaucratic one-size-fits-all mentality cannot replace personalized care, real relationships, and a sense of belonging created by religious outreaches. The larger government gets, the more corruption and fraud crowd out a program’s noble intentions. One may be justified in asking whether big government is a near occasion of sin.

Such is an unsubstantiated statement. But we might ask Rev. Johnson which philanthropic work can compete with Social Security or Medicare in terms of providing resources and services for so many people? Again, a single counterexample is all that is needed to to dispel one of Rev. Johnson's claims.

Finally, to show how defensive Rev Johnson has become to the article he reviewed, one only needs to note how he describes that it is either government or God that provides for people. He never considered that God can use government and its programs to provide for people. That when we attribute our blessings to government only, or any other human agency, only, then all that has happened is that God was not given his due.

In addition, there is one more interpretation of the data that could be postulated. That some religions prey on the vulnerability of the people in order to draw followers. That vulnerability could be based on fear or deprivation. And that is why religiosity and the prevalence of effective government assistance programs have a negative correlation. Thus, opposing government assistance programs could be a logical strategy adopted by those religions that seek to take advantage of people's suffering. Perhaps that is the nerve that was hit by  the article Rev. Johnson commented on

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

To Chuck Chalberg and his blogpost on ‘single-issue liberals’ and how different Democratic liberals and Republican conservatives are. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

While teaching, I asked one of my colleagues who was from another country about how different our political parties were. My friend said, 'very little.' And this is the problem we have when sizing up people from the other side. If we were to be more reflective, we might realize that many  whom we thought were on the other side are actually on a different part of our own side.

In addition, any American who thinks that Democrats are on the left know little about both the Democrats and the Left. As a leftist, that is one who does not believe in Capitalism, not even Bernie Sanders is counted as one of us. Noam Chomsky has correctly labeled him as an "FDR New Dealer." That is he likes the social safety net programs FDR initiated while President. And many conservatives call that the left because they mistakenly equate big government and entitlements with socialism.

When one reads Marx, one realizes that the first agenda item to be addressed by any socialist from the Marxist tradition is the redistribution  of power, not wealth. And that redistribution isn't designated to an ominous, amorphous alien state, that redistribution channels power to the workers. For the abolition of private property for Marx occurs in its ideal sense when the proletariat can make laws that curb actions of wealthy landowners. Thus, Marx's abolition of private property assumed the existence of such property. And when we look at the left from that perspective, we find that Democrats and Republicans have far more in common than Democrats and the left.

Some of those shared views between establishment Democrats and Republicans include support for our current neoliberal form of Capitalism. Here we should note that during the 2016 election, both Trump and Clinton were supporting two different sides of neoliberal capitalism. For while Clinton was pushing for America to join the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), Trump was pushing for tax relief for and mass deregulation of American businesses.  In essence, both want the same kind of economic system only Clinton believed that it should include some fringe benefit bells and whistles in order to keep the masses happy. And now, it has been reported that Trump is reconsidering his position on the TPP.

Did both Trump and Clinton believe in big military budgets and American interventionism with impunity? Yes. Do both allow for a growing deficit? Yes. Did the DOJ from Clinton's Democratic predecessor fail to prosecute any of the financial wizards who were responsible for the economic collapse of 2008? Yes. Is Trump following suit? Yes.

All of the above leaves social issues, like same-sex marriage, as the only issues left for establishment Democrats and Republicans to debate over. Yes, there are fringe members and groups of each party which get their 15 minutes of fame, but they never seem to really change the direction of the Republican and Democratic establishments. So the article above seems both puzzling and uninformed. For the only thing that seems to really divide America is a manufactured tribalism over labels and those pesky social issues. And that obscures the reality of the real divisions that exists. For the real division in America today is the one that exists between the establishment of each party and their respective constituents. And for as long as we have a 2-party system, the establishment is sitting pretty.