How Should We Now Do Christian Apologetics?

 As stated in a previous article, many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians, especially our leaders and influencers, seem to be experiencing an apologetic panic. What is an apologetic panic?

First, let's define apologetics. Apologetics isn't necessarily about apologizing, though that  is should be in this particular case. Apologetics is about giving a verbal defense of an idea or group. Thus Christian Apologetics would consist of defending the Christian faith. And what The Keller Center For Cultural Apologetics wants to accomplish is to use education to produce a new generation of people who can adequately defend and promote the Christian faith in today's culture.

Second, what is an apologetic panic? Panic itself is a word used to describe a strong, sudden fear. Sometimes, feeling panic causes us to overreact to a problem. Thus a Christian apologetic panic is an intense fear of what is in the current culture and society to the point of overreacting by trying too hard to say too much.

Third, the problem that many religiously conservative Christian leaders and influences are reacting to is the end of Christendom. That is it is the end of a time period when religiously conservative Christianity held a certain prominent influence and informal control over culture. And it is the end of Christendom and what has replaced it that has caused the apologetic panic we see today.

And so now we come to the article that will be reviewed here. It is an article by Collin Hansen (click here for a bio) about an initiative by The Gospel Coalition that is named after Tim Keller, who is a deservedly famous and well-respected conservative Christian leader,. The Gospel Coalition has started a Christian apologetics enter to stop the decline of Christianity's influence over culture and hopefully to recover at least some of the influence that Christianity once had. Collin Hansen is the executive director of this project. And here we should note that Hansen doesn't believe that cultural apologetics is the or the best way of defending the faith. But it will be taught at the Keller Center.

According to Hansen (click here for Hansen's article), one of the stated objectives of The Keller Center For Cultural Apologetics is to find a broad perspective of where our culture is heading and how to talk about, or use language, to promote Christianity as being the most beneficial influence for our culture. At this point, one must wonder whether we have ventured from defending as done in apologetics to what should be called a cultural evangelism in the promoting of the faith. 

And perhaps the direction of the Keller Center consists of both cultural apologetics and cultural evangelism. For in defending Christianity, especially its moral values, we are sticking up for what has been replaced in our now secular culture. And in stating that because Christianity offers the best hope for how people live, we are trying to persuade people to choose either all of Christianity or significant parts of it. One part of Christianity that the Center wants to promote in our culture is much of the language that Christianity uses to describe the life and the world around us.

Hansen then gives an overall description of Christian cultural apologetics as he sees it. And again, we see a mix of both cultural apologetics and cultural evangelism:

Cultural apologetics, then, helps unbelievers want the gospel to be true even before they may fully understand this good news. We offer the beauty of the lordship of Christ as opposed to the ugliness of the lordship of the principalities and powers (Eph. 6:12).

Then citing a book by Ted Turnau, the message of Christian cultural apologetics accomplishes the task  by what sharing with the unbeliever what Christianity says about 'goodness, beauty, justice, hope, peacefulness, vitality, and mercy.'

Later on, Hansen repeats what has been said earlier about The Keller Center's approach to apologetics. It is to provide both a profound overall assessment of where our culture is going from a sound theologically conservative perspective.

Hansen then quotes Christian Smith on the current cultural dilemma in which we find ourselves. For what we are seeing today is a significant rejection of the past and the imposition of so much that is new today. And in so quoting him, he is describing our current cultural situation while neglecting why we are in that situation. 

What Smith calls the post-enlightenment period should be referred to as the Post Modern period. It is the Post Modern period because not only does Post Modernism  reject the Modernism with the Enlightenment, it also rejects Pre Modernism with its tinted glasses of faith. And the reason why it rejects both is because of the historic outcomes that both periods have either produced or have been associated with. Those outcomes include wars, exploitation, imperialism, colonialism, racism, sexism, classism, and a host of other problems. And though we religiously conservative Christians would like to say that Post Modernism misunderstands us Pre Modern faith people by blaming us for those grave injustices, we need to first examine history to see if Post Modernism's assessment of us is at least understandable if not significantly correct.

In other words, part of Christian Apologetics today should include an apology tour of more depth than the one that was attributed to President Obama when he referred to some of America's past sins. Failure to go on this apology tour can produce the same results for us which the 2016 U.S. Presidential election produced.

In that election year, Donald Trump successfully portrayed himself as the outsider to the 'swamp' of Washington D.C. Never mind that Trump's picture of himself carried with it some gross inaccuracies, Trump gained a lot of support from people who viewed his opposition with contempt.

Why did Trump gain that support from so many people? It is partially because people recognized that there are things that are significantly wrong with the system and the establishment sectors of both major parties would not own up to their sins and failures. Thus, representatives from the establishment sector of both major parties did not have, in the eyes of the public, the credibility to counter Trump's claims.

So too, we have a problem with the period when Christianity held sway over the culture--this period is otherwise known as Christendom. People could recognize the many failures of Christendom and people associated those failures with the conservative Christian faith. And religiously conservative Christians failed to own up to enough of its failures and sins to do adequate damage control for the wrongs practiced during Christendom. This failure to own up to its mistakes and sins has cost religiously conservative Christianity much of its credibility in the eyes of many non political conservatives. And thus secular ideologies and isms are making inroads not just in society at large, but in the Church too.

So the question becomes for The Keller Center For Cultural Apologetics, are its people going to be honest about the failures and sin of Christendom that significantly contributed to the many social injustices that has produced the rejection of much of the past. Here we should note that Post Modernism doesn't reject religion per se, it objects to and argues against those religious faiths that make absolute exclusive truth claims. And, again, the historical outcomes of the claims made is the reason for their rejection.

If the teachings from The Keller Center For Cultural Apologetics does not acknowledge the failures of Christendom, then message from that center will have little to no credibility to those who are not political conservatives. In addition, the message from the Keller Center would basically be saying that whereas forefathers might have made some mistakes in the past, we now know how to rule over culture right.

But something must be taught at this Keller Center. That is that while it teaches its students about the Gospel and Biblical values, it must teach its students on how to work with unbelievers in society to build a society and culture that is free from Christendom. That is the only way in which we can interact with society without seeking the kind of position in society that Christianity had under Christendom which hurt the reputation of the Gospel. For while Christianity had a privileged place in society and culture during Christendom, people were exploited and marginalized. And it is that exploitation and marginalization of others that have caused many to turn a deaf ear to what religiously conservative Christianity says. In addition, by portraying Christianity as having a monopoly on truth and wisdom, we will be tempted to justify that position by trying too hard to say too much.

One has to respect the intentions and the efforts of those who are starting this new center for cultural apologetics. They care about the Gospel and they care about people. At the same time, those who are directing the efforts of this center for cultural apologetics must acknowledge at least most of the failures and sins of Christendom. Otherwise, regardless of their intentions and knowledge, they will end up repeating the errors and sins from the past.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 29, 2017

March 21

To Collin Hansen and his blogpost review of Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option in the light of Trump’s Presidency. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.


I haven't read his book but I have read some of Dreher's articles on the Benedict Option. The weakness I find with his approach which should have some bearing on how we agree with his approach or react to what he sees is that he believes that Christians should maintain a privileged place in society resulting in some degree of Christian supremacy over culture and society. This supremacy, historically speaking, has led to the marginalization of many people and that marginalization has not just been based on race. It is good that Hansen brought up past racism. But other bases for marginalization include economic class, religion, and sexual orientation and identity.

If we religiously conservative Christians could only be content with sharing society with others as equals rather than as being treated as a privileged group, we could see that today's culture wars are both unnecessary and harmful for all involved.

So the real question here goes to Dreher's analysis of culture and the presuppositions he carries in analyzing culture. For if we Christians want to have some degree of supremacy in controlling culture, then Dreher's analysis and solution have some legitimacy even though it causes Christians to appear like children who take their games home from friends because they lost in those games. But if we focused on sharing society with others as equals, especially with those from the LGBT community, then the only need we would have to address is to apologize for the how we have wronged the LGBT community in the past and ask about what measures must we take to address those wrongs prior to the pendulum hitting us in the face from its reversing direction. And we don't have to compromise on what the Scriptures say about sexuality and marriage to apologize.

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

The comment below is currently listed as being under moderation even though comments submitted later have been posted. Please continue to check the Gospel Coalition blogpost to see if the comment is still not posted.

To Kevin deYoung and his blogpost that claims that those in need as portrayed in Jesus’s parable of the sheep and the goats refers to fellow Christians only. This appeared in then Gospel Coalition website

But the charge to love one’s neighbor, according to the Good Samaritan parable, means that we must show charity to all who are vulnerable who come our way. And in an age of technology-enabled connectedness and governments that are more accountable to its people, then our neighbors include more and more people and thus opposing our government from caring for the vulnerable is to make Cain’s rhetorical question to God the basis for our political ideology.

IN addition, we should note the original definition of stakeholder before we oppose government as it tries to help those in need.


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

March 22

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Andrew Sullivan on how intersectionality has become a religion. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

With how the Bible describes our sinfulness, I don't see any problem with considering the validity of concepts Sullivan associates with intersectionality. We know that identity-based oppression is a fact of history and life. And the only ones who should feel threatened by such ideas are those who cherish their association with privileged groups. They are often described by the OT prophets as those who either neglect or oppress the vulnerable. So certainly those who are privileged should be challenged on either their active participation in or silent complicity with oppressing other groups.

Where intersectionality has become a religion according to Sullivan is not necessarily in the concepts they espouse, but in their response to those who promote opposing ideas. At the speaking event Sullivan described in his article, some of those who adhere to intersectoinality not only prevented a controversial speaker, Charles Murray, from speaking, the manner in which they shut down the event reminded Sullivan of a religion. And that should not surprise us in today's world of  highly insular, ideological groups. It's the insularity that, more than anything else, contributes to a self-righteous intolerance by and even the religiosity of many of today's ideological groups.

What failed to be mentioned in the quote above is how Sullivan describes Trump as being just as much an enemy of truth as those who both adhere to intersectionality and disrupted the speaking event that Sullivan described. We should note that Sullivan commented on how Trump too disregards any facts that challenge his ideology. And it is here that Sullivan ties together those who disrupted the speaking event with Trump. For he states that neither side allows for any facts to exist which challenge their own orthodoxies. Thus, from different ideological perspectives, those who believe in intersectionality and Trump himself mimic each other in how they respond to challenges. They mimic each other not necessarily by tactics used but by only allowing for any reality that challenges their ideologies.

So the question becomes why does this blogpost only quote Sullivan when he describes intersectionality and not Trump?

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

March 24

To Bruce Ashford and his blogpost review of a book by David Koyzis on making idols out of our politics. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.


Two points to make here. Being a socialist, I felt that socialism was misrepresented that was because it was treated as a monolith based on one of its oldest models. We should note that many who have thought about and promoted socialism since Marx, realize that Socialism existed before Marx only he added some particular flavors to it, have some different views than his. Some have followed the Trotsky/Stalin division though I am not sure whether that is the best way to describe that division. Others have taken away the utopian and there are those who have minimized Socialism's materialism while add to that its relational aspects such as seen in the promotion of various degrees of worker control at the workplace and in government. While some want to define socialism around a particular ideology, others focus on socialism as a practice. BTW, when the following revolves around materialism, we could easily say that socialism and capitalism are two sides of the same materialist coin. Both seek a relative or absolute utopia based on the distribution of goods.

And though I can't speak for liberals, conservatives, and nationalists because of how I saw socialism oversimplified, my suspicion is that liberals, conservatives, and nationalists might feel the same misrepresentation of their pet ideologies due to oversimplification that I experienced when read what was said in the above article about socialism.

There is one point I agree with article about though I will put that agreement in my own words. The more ideological we are, the more prone we are to make our political approach into an idol. And how idolatrous we are in our political ideologies can be measured not just in how it changes our relationship with and view of God, but in how we treat others as well. The more we demonize others and think of our own group as having everything to teach and nothing to learn from others, the more our political ideologies have become our idols.

BTW, the line above that says everything to teach and nothing to learn is adapted from a Martin Luther King Jr. line. And I mention that because as Ashford cites the author he is reviewing, David Koyzis, he replicates a King practice that is suggested, if not implied, by resisting the urge to make any political ideology into an idol. That is, as King noted, from comparing America's Capitalism with Russia's Communism, both had unique contributions to make and unique flaws to correct. Thus, we should work with all political ideologies to develop hybrids that emphasize the strengths of each ideology.

But something else has to be said to us religiously conservative Christians. We have to recognize that society is not the Church. And thus, we have evaluate how we should share society with others prior to working with those who adhere to other ideologies in shaping society. For the more we religiously conservative Christians presume a privileged place where we demand some degree of supremacy over others in determining society's laws and mores, the more we will appear to others as those who have made their pet political ideologies into idols appear to us. That is the more we will come across to unbelievers as those who have everything to teach and nothing to learn. In contrast to that, the more we strive to share society with unbelievers as equals, the more we will naturally exhibit the humility Ashford writes about at the end of his article.

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

March 25

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost about how he grew up as a racist but was converted and now sees some of the reactions against the traditions and beliefs of Western Civilization as being racist and, in some people, ethno-massochistic. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

On the one hand, I respect the personal sharing Pearce did in this article. On the other hand, one doesn't have to be a White Supremacist to be a racist. Racism exists on a continuum. Though growing up in an all white neighborhood for most of my youth, I never became a "White Supremacist." But after reflecting on my college days, I realize that I was what I call a passive racist back then. It's not that I was an aggressive racist, but I had racist views stemming from ignorance and that governed how I interpreted and reacted to Black Americans at college. Hopefully I've fully corrected that but I have too much of a conflict of interest to objectively evaluate myself here.

And though we shouldn't believe that all White men were White Supremacists when looking at the history of Western Civilization, but that isn't the issue. We should realize that racism permeated the Western Civilization from its empires and colonialism to its practice of slavery and slave trading, to its ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples from different lands, to its ethnocracy from the assumption of racial privilege which returns us to White Supremacy though such can be a softer version of White Supremacy than how we usually think of it..

However, we need to understand that what could be called an overreaction to the racism, which Pearce has noted, that is so much a part of almost every aspect of Western Civilization is not racist. Btw, I am calling the banning or burning of books or the total rejection of Western Civilization an overreaction. Rather, it is rooted in an all-or-nothing thinking approach to an outcome-based truth system that simply says if a belief system has produced any abusive behavior, then the belief system is totally false. This kind of reaction is what we see in phobias that are the result of suffering traumas rather than any ethno-masochism. For this kind of reaction is more directed at culture than race. So what we are seeing there is simply the foundation of Post Modernism with its rejection of historical metanarratives because of much of the fruit of those metanarratives. Thus, the supremacy sought in Post Modernism is found in its total rejection of and, by some, its attempts to cleanse ourselves of the metanarratives of Modernism and Pre Modernism rather than in any reactive racism.

And trying to tie racism to Marxism is done pejoratively here. Such is a set up for establishing the supremacy of one's non-Marxist traditions of thought while no specifics are provided to establish the alleged association. But where we do see supremacy showing its ugly face is when a group, whether that group is based on cultural identity, ideology, economic class, race, national identity, sexual orientation, religion, and so forth believes that it cannot afford to share society as equals with those who are different in a diverse society.

And this returns us to the beginning. Whereas Pearce has gone through quite a personal transformation that merits much respect, he seems to overstate his case about being cleansed from supremacist ways of thinking. But for that matter, who has been totally cleansed of all kinds of supremacist ways of thinking? We can find out by how willing we are to share society with others as equals. And we can only share society with others as equals when, using the phraseology of Martin Luther King Jr., we reject the notion that our own group has everything to teach others and have nothing to learn from them.

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

To Devin Ryan and his blogpost claiming that it is time for Russia and the others to bury Lenin rather than allowing his body to still be displayed in the Kremlin. This burying of Lenin would cut all favorable associations with him. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

We need to realize that some conflicts consist of evil vs evil. Such was the case when Lenin and the Bolsheviks hijacked the Russian Revolution. The first Revolution saw a provisional government overthrow the Tsar at that time. The provisional government then failed because it followed the will of the capitalists who wanted Russia to continue to fight in WW I. It also saw the Capitalists as having control of the nation. Thus, the conditions that led to the February Revolution of 1917 continued and that led to the October Revolution. We should note that during Russia's pre-revolutionary times, the Church supported the Tsars and the status quo. Though I am unaware of who the Church supported during the reign of the Provisional Government, it opposed the Socialists. Now while Lenin denounced religion, other socialists, like Rosa Luxemburg, called on the Russian Church to support the Socialists for everyone's good.

At the same time, we should note that Socialists like Rosa Luxemburg denounced Lenin's regime calling it a bourgeoisie dictatorship. Others have said that he simply practiced his own version of how the Tsars ruled. Other Socialists were cleansed from the scene by a power hungry Lenin who felt threatened by diversity and dissent. His reach for power included disbanding the soviets and Russia's Constituent Assembly. Other Socialists supported his hijacking because of the Counter Revolution and the crises that followed the Revolution. In essence, those who hijacked the Revolution were Bolsheviks. And thus what we have here is a complex picture of Socialism rather than a simple one that serves as a basis for the pejorative use of the word 'socialism.'

What we saw in Stalin was Lenin-gone-wild while what we saw in Lenin was Stalin-lite.  In either case, there was no proletariat dictatorship that was essential to what Marx taught. So it would be difficult to claim that under Lenin or Stalin, Marxist Socialism failed since it wasn't practiced. It wasn't until you get to Gorbachev who, btw rejected Stalin but embraced what Lenin taught, that you begin to see the Socialist concern for democracy being put on display in Russia. Should note that while not practicing Socialism, Lenin still tended to espouse Socialist beliefs and some just rationalize his totalitarian rule because of the crises that Russia was experiencing back then.

But returning to Lenin, both the Church and Lenin were on the wrong side of history. The Church was on the wrong side because of its support of those with wealth and power, including support for the Tsar, prior to the Revolution. Lenin was on the wrong side of history as he replaced one dictatorship with another. Thus, if we are going to cut all sentimental ties to Lenin, which is why he would be buried, the same goes for the Tsars. The result of both burials would be that bolsheviks and many from the Russian Orthodox Church would be ideologically orphaned.


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

March 27

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the role of Christian journalism and how that is carried out at The Gospel Coalition. This appeared on the Gospel Coalition website.

The crux of many conflicts among Christians and between Christians and nonChristians is what is meant by a 'restoration of creation'? Does it mean that we start to impose Christian values and Church laws on society? And we should also look at the why of this restoration. Does that why revolve around us and the enjoyment of our new life?

Those are pertinent questions because we are sharing that creation with nonChristians. And what  happens when we overreach in that restoration of creation is that we start to use society as a supplemental disciplinary arm of the Church. We know from the Scriptures that unbelievers are not subject to Church discipline. But if we try too hard to assist God in restoring creation, won't unbelievers become obstacles and then we will try to use civil laws to remove those obstacles? And thus, we will be using society as a supplemental disciplinary arm of the Church on those who are not subject to Church discipline.

The most pertinent question that involves the third point of Keller's three-point outline is: How should we Christians share society with others? Does God want his people to claim a privileged place in society so we can enjoy places of supremacy in order for Him to use us to restore creation? Or should we share society with others as equals and work side by side with them in creating a society with equality and justice? In addition, based on that third point, must the world revolve around us Christians because we are God's people? Those are all pertinent questions for any Christian journalist or ministry because the answers to those questions will determine what is advocated and what is described by those doing Christian journalism.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 15, 2017

March 10

To Brian Mattson and his blogpost review of a book by Ryszard Legato where liberal democracy and totalitarian communism are series as having many similarities including their opposition to Christianity. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

There are two things we should note here. First, that the author of the book cited, Ryszard Legutko, is an honest broker with no religious strings attached that would color his world view and thus affect how he perceives liberal democracy. Of course such is not the case. Lequtko is a Roman Catholic who opposed the legalization of homosexuality and who is currently being sued for his verbal attack on students who called for the removal of 'Christian symbols' from schools.
Second, as with Ayn Rand, it is very possible that Lequtko's view of the Communism/Socialism is a bit distorted since his only personal experience with the Left is Bolshevism. There are many Leftists who strongly opposed Bolshevism both back when it hijacked the  Russian Revolution and today. But Lequtko seems content to associate liberal democracy with its love of 'freedom, diversity, and tolerance' with the totalitarian communism seen in Bolshevism anyway.

So why tie liberal democracy to the totalitarianism of communism? Is it because both had legitimate gripes against Christianity so that their persecution of Christianity did not originate out of religious differences per say. Here we should note that Bolshevism persecuted the Church because the Church supported wealth and power prior to both the February and October Revolutions. We should note that not all on the Left opposed Christianity, but the Bolsheviks did. As for liberal democracy, we need to know the details of why it opposes Christianity. Let assume that, as some like Lequtko would advance, that America was founded on Christianity. We should first note that there was quite a bit of religious intolerance just between Christian denominations themselves. That intolerance finally ended when the Revolutionary War's demands for  manpower meant that the American churches could no longer remain too divided.

Then it was out of Christianity that people felt entitled to take land from the Native Americans resulting in ethnically cleansing  them from most of America. Then we saw that much of Christianity supported the subjugation of Blacks through slavery and then Jim Crow. And all through America's history we have seen how the American churches have worked to marginalize homosexuals first with criminalizing their practices so that homosexuals could be either executed or incarcerated on to allowing for the discrimination against homosexuals and opposing their equality in society.

It is the details of the diversity that both liberal democracy embraced and much of American Christianity opposed that perhaps sheds light on why Lequtko both would associate it with totalitarian Communism (Bolshevism) and would replace liberal democracy. Perhaps the term is ethnocracy would be the replacement. Ethnocracy refers to the rule of a specific group based on ethnic ties, race, language, national identity, or religion would exercise over the rest of a pluralistic nation using the democratic processes. For if diversity and freedom are our enemies because of their alleged similarities to totalitarian Communism, then some degree of conformity is the solution. And it appears that, according to Lequtko, Classical and Christian traditions would tell us how to conform. But how is it that insistence on conformity is not mentioned as being similar to totalitarian Communism while liberal democracy with its emphasis on diversity is? That, rather than what is attributed to Lequtko as a replacement for liberal democracy, is what requires further explanation in a sequel. And this would also add to why Lequtko said there was a justified fear of religion, which is rather paradoxical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 11

To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost on “education liberation,” which is used to describe why we should support vouchers for school choice. This appeared in the Acton blog.

If we applied the school choice model to attending college, then each student who attended a for-profit college, a private college, or a religious college would receive from the state the same assistance that an instate student in a state college receives. Here we should note that what an instate student in a state college receives is hidden since states give money state schools to help finance these state schools.

We should also note that if we applied the college model to the school choice program, we would note that all private, charter, and religious schools would be responsible for providing assistance to students who could not afford to attend their schools.

Now here is the inconsistency. We wouldn't think of giving the same state money to any student who decided to attend for-profit, private, or religious college that is spent on in-state students at state schools. Why? To make that work, we would either have to raise taxes significantly to fund such a program or we would continue to spend less and less on each instate student attending a state school. And yet, we do not call for a college choice program where students who want to attend non-state schools are depicted as needing liberation through a freedom of choice for colleges. But knowing that public schools, some of which are already suffering from a lack of funds because of depleted tax bases, would receive less and less money because those attending non-public schools are taking public school funds with them as non-public schools are at least partially relieved from the responsibility of finding funding for some of their students. As a result, some public schools, which are basically community schools, will suffer deterioration. And if they collapse, there are not enough resources from the non-public school sector to pick up the slack. Then what happens to those students left behind?

The problem is that, just as in college, students are not prohibited from attending the primary and secondary schools of their choice. Therefore, school choice is not a freedom or liberation issue. It is a financial issue both in college and in primary and secondary education. But if we accommodate those who insist otherwise, we should note that enabling students to "escape" their community schools also becomes a student flight issue. And this points to one of the biggest problems with the school choice movement. For rather than addressing the problems and improving the communities in which under-performing schools are located, we are fleeing from problems. And the students that come from troubled communities only escape those communities during school hours. And then they are taught that success is achieved by leaving the community in which they grew up. This causes these communities to suffer further decay.

We have economic segregation in  our nation where the houses we move into often depend on the neighbors we can afford to live with. And that means we can completely wash our hands of the plights of the communities we didn't want to live in. What is called school choice further exhibits this segregation not in terms of the schools students can choose, but in terms of the plights of the community schools those students leave behind. What was called 'white flight' is an instance of the kind of flight we see resulting from the school choice movement. And those who are left behind eventually become more and more invisible to government and society. Since not all students can flee from their community schools, we should call the school choice plan with its claims of freedom and liberation a student-flight program because their communities are not worth our concern. And yet, with all of what is being said, we haven't really touched on why we have a school choice movement.

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

March 13

To Collin Hansen and his blogpost review of Rod Dreher’s The Benedict Option where part of what is discussed is whether politics can save us. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

From the review, it appears is that Dreher does not see the threat that wrong associations can be to the Gospel. For by stating that we live in a post-Christian culture, does he ever ask about what from the Christian culture is being rightly rejected? Fortunately Hansen identifies one problematic association: racism. Another one that is often overlooked is economic classism. This is sometimes missed because the predominant branch of the Church of certain places has often sided with wealth. This was true in the pre-revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain. And we should note that once the revolutions took place, the Gospel suffered dishonor because the Church had sided with wealth.

I'm afraid that aligning the Church behind Trump repeats this same mistake. For what has Trump done but to show himself an ally to wealth at the expense of eliminating more of business's social responsibilities than have done away with before. Think about the environment as we extract and use even more fossil fuels, dump fracking wastewater into the Gulf of Mexico, dump waste from coal mining into streams, or put a climate denier as head of the EPA. Or think about the new Republican healthcare plan and how it is projected that millions will lose their health insurance while insurance CEOs get tax breaks. Or think about how Trump's tax and spending plans, including cutting billion of dollars from HUD, continue to bankrupt the country. It is important that he wants to eliminate elective abortions performed by Planned Parenthood, but his other actions will be associated with the pro-life cause if we don't oppose him where he is wrong.

In these times, we need to both preserve the Christian faith while being able to interact with our culture. That includes being credible witnesses by acknowledging the past wrongs of the Church as well as being able to identify where the current culture is at least partially right. I don't see that happening under Dreher's Benedict Option. And if I am right, the pertinent question isn't regarding whether politics can save us. And even if we were to ask that question, we have to also ask save us from what? For apparently, having lost the culture war, some believe that politics could have saved us from that.

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

March 14

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost video that makes comparisons in an effort to claim that Christian business owners have the right to refuse providing services to same-sex functions. This appeared in Heidelblog.

For the businesses refusing to sell Ivanka's fashions is not an apples to apples comparison with a Christian business refusing to serve a same-sex wedding. For one thing, the business that refuses to sell Ivanka's fashions is determining what iventory they will have. And in the of Nordsrum when they refused to continue to carry Ivanka's fashions, it was because her products were not selling. So on two counts, the comparison is not an apples to apples comparison.

As for the Muslim singer having the right to refuse to sing in a church service, again, one must look for an apples to apples comparison if one wants to compare that with a Christian business refusing to serve a same-sex function. Does the Muslim singer provide his singing as a businessman who serves the general public? If not, there is no apples to apples comparison exists here between his/her refusal and a Christian business owner's refusal to do provide goods and services for the LGBT community or a same-sex function.

As for the Christian business owner who refuses to provide goods and services to a same-sex function because of their personal religious convictions, we must remember that the most apt comparison we can make with this is the Christian business owners who, because of their religious beliefs, refused to serve Blacks during Jim Crow days. Should White Christian business owners have the right to refuse to do business with Blacks for privately held religious reasons? See, here we have more of an apples to apples comparison with Christian business owners' rights to refuse to serve same-sex functions. Why? It is because in both cases, groups from individual consumers are being discriminated against because of their group identity. Allowing such discrimination means that certain kinds of groups of people can suffer partial or full depricvation of goods and services either in isolated locations or throughout the nation in  general.

See, the missing ingredient in all of the other examples compared with Christian business owners who refuse to provide goods and services to  same-sex functions is the relationship the consumer has with the business refusing a business transaction and the welfare of the group being denied. The way the questions were asked in the video focussed solely on the business owners' concerns; there was no expressed concern for what happens to the other party. And this is what dishonors the Gospel when Christian business owners refuse to provide goods and services to either the LGBT community in general or to same-sex functions. These business owners are only expressing concern for themselves; they are expressing no concern for what potentially can happen to the LGBT community. This is the kind of mistake that Christian business owners made when they refused to serve Blacks or served them in segregated fashion during Jim Crow.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 8, 2017

February 1

To Kevin DeYoung, Collin Hansen, and Trevin Wax and their blogpost that plays a recording of their discussion on when we should use the law to legislate Christian morality. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

What I see is missing from the discussion is a good definition of democracy and our place as Christians in society. Democracy has sometimes been reduced to its political mechanisms, which is what I think was done in this discussion. However, the literal definition of democracy is that the people rule. And there are certain egalitarian overtones in that statement so that when a subset of people seize power, even if its by using democratic mechanisms, and rule over all other groups of people, we don't have the people ruling, we have a subset of people ruling and thus we don't have a democracy. Jeff Halper, an Israeli activist and founder of the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions, has provided this helpful distinction between what is called democracy and what he called an ethnocracy when the subset of people who seize power belong to some kind of ethnic classification in a diverse society (see page 74 of his book An Israeli In Palestine).

Second, when examining our role in society, the question we most often fail to ask is this: How will we Christians share society with others? Will we share society as those who seek to have privileges and thus control over all other groups or will we share society as equals? If we share as the first group, then aren't we flying in the face of both Democracy and Jesus's warning not to 'lord it over' others?

Third, there is a problem with prohibiting same-sex marriage based on natural law and/or the belief that marital law should revolve around supporting what is best for human flourishing. Regarding natural law, we should note that homosexuality exists in 1,500 species and its existence is beneficial to the species. Regarding what is best for human flourishing, should the law only allow what is deemed best or can it allow for all other options that do not violate the rights of or harm others?

Finally, the statements made about how Christianity was not the only frame of reference for prohibiting same-sex marriage was rather shallow. For one thing, the thinking of some Christian churches regarding same-sex relationships and marriage has changed. Also, there have been societies that have allowed same-sex marriage and other same-sex living relationships. In addition, the history of Western Civilization has been up until recently dominated by what would be considered today as conservative forms of Christianity. And that Judaism and Islam also prohibit same-sex marriages does not imply that we don't have freedom of religion issues in prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Yes, laws are there to protect us and that can help change us. But when one group gains control of the government to force its way of life on a diverse society, then laws can become oppressive on various levels to those who do not belong to the group that is in control. And if we Christians are that group, then again what we are doing is flying in the face of both Democracy and Jesus's prohibition not to be like the Gentiles who like to 'lord it over' others. We also unnecessarily provide stumbling blocks to the hearing of the Gospel for many a nonChristian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To David Platt and his blogpost on how we should respond to the Refugee Crisis. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Regarding the exhortation to act justly, does that imply that we should demand that our government cease from all actions that further injustice and cause more and more people to become refugees? After all, we are not living in the Roman Empire that Apostles lived in; we live in a Democracy where we have the right and responsibility to tell our government what to do.

BTW, one more point should be made. Both the Syrians and the Jordanians demonstrated some of the greatest generosity ever seen by how they took in Iraqi refugees who felt they had to flee their nation because of the US invasion. How is it that we who believe in the Gospel and live in the richest nation in the world should  show less generosity and compassion than what the Syrians have already shown others?

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

February 2

To Joe Carter and his blogpost interview with Matthew Soerens as they talk about Trump’s Refugee policy. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.

There are some good points made in this article. However, like immigration policies, there is one missing factor in Trump's latest EO that is a part of our refugee policies. That missing factor are US policies that create refugees. We should remember, or research, that many refugees were created by the US invasion of Iraq. The people of Jordan and Syria, nations that do not have our economic resources, put Americans to shame in how they helped Iraqi refugees during this time.

We should note that most of the nations in the ban are nations that have been attacked by the US--some of them saw the US overthrow their governments. And now, having created or significantly contributed to the refugee problem, we are closing our doors to these refugees to protect ourselves, we display a dangerous, that is dangerous to both ourselves and the world, lack of awareness regarding our actions, especially in how we use our military.

If we want to limit the number of refugees coming into the US, then we must adjust your policies so that we are not creating refugees.

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

Feb 3

To Dwight Longenecker and his blogpost that claims that the “left” and media response to Trumps ban is over the top. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

It is true that the more bullets nonconservatives fire at Trump, the more support they instigate for him. Such is the nature of political tribalism in our nation. However, the hysteria about immigration and refugee policies belongs with the Trump Administration and those supporting the ban. To say that a ban on predominantly Muslim countries is not a Muslim ban is premature. To say that the ban targets potential terrorists overlooks details. The only Muslim terrorists who have attacked America on American soil are those who come from nations not included in the ban. In addition, since 1980, around 3 million refugees have been admitted to the US and none of them have conducted any acts of terrorism (see https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-should-christians-think-about-trumps-refugee-policy ). The frenzied rush of support for the ban also ignores the vetting process in terms of who does the vetting and how long the vetting process takes place.

Also, I have not seen religiously conservative Christians or other supporters of Trump propose that we tie foreign policies to immigration and refugee policies. We should note that for the majority of the nations on the ban, they have suffered attacks by the US military and/or been targeted for regime change by our government. The instability caused by these actions is a major reason why we have as many refugees in the world as we have. And it is more than just a cruel joke to both pursue foreign policies that significantly increases the number of refugees while reducing the number of refugees who are allowed to enter our nation.

Finally, why not ban all immigrants and refugees from Israel and allowing exceptions for persecuted religious minorities while insisting that such a ban is not a Jewish ban? Trump's ban is not a Muslim ban? How can we say that such a statement comes from hysteria when part of Trump's campaign included a promise to institute a Muslim ban along with the lack of need for a ban while Trump institutes kind of the ban that he has?Also, Hillary is no leftist; she is a liberal Democrat. As such, she supports capitalism, Leftists are anti-capitalists.


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

Feb 7

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on why Christians should support school vouchers. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Here is the problem with supporting school vouchers. Some schools are already underfunded, vouchers will add to that problem. As public schools get less revenue, they will perform more poorly and the system will collapse. And there will be no schools that will be able to take up the slack because for profit charter schools will not have the resources to provide for the demand should public schools collapse.

It seems that the conservative approach to eliminating government programs, such as education, is to under fund them so that they will under perform. In the end, what eliminating federal programs does is to free businesses from having to meet their social responsibilities since businesses, especially successful ones, are the primary benefactors of these programs. It is all done in the name of maximizing profits. The Scriptures refer to that ethic as the love of money. And the Scriptures are quite clear in declaring that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And history is quite clear in pointing out that when the Church sides with wealth, it often sides with tyranny.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 27, 2016

April 19

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on society’s changing values especially those stemming from the new position that the LGBT community has achieved in society. This appeared in Heidelblog.

What religiously conservative American Christians have had the greatest difficulty with is knowing what to let go in society and what to battle for. Because many of us have grown up in a different time when Christian values held a stronger place in developing cultural and societal values, we look at each new change in our culture and society with shock and dismay. Though the dismay is often appropriate, the shock isn't. 

And because we have not made wise choices in knowing which cultural and societal values to battle, we have failed to share society with those who are different as equals. And more than anything else, our crusade to marginalize those from the LGBT community has stirred much greater anger than any differences that exist in our beliefs and values.

So as we critique, as is done above, society's newest values and trends, we need to know the natural boundaries of that critique as we share society with others as equals. It is unclear whether the above article articulates the location of those boundaries.

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

April 20

To Collin Hansen and his blogpost interview of Nabeel Qureshi from Ravi Zacharias’ Ministries on Christianity and Islam. This appeared in The Gospel Coalition website.

I find this post to be one of the most inadequate blogposts on a Christian's view of Islam ever. Which matters more about the person interviewed: is it that he was a former Muslim or that he currently works for a Western Christian apologist? And, btw, by describing Nabeel Qureshi's boss, Ravi Zecharias as a Western Christian apologist, we might include that he is as much a Wester apologist as he is a Christian one (see http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/top-christian-voice-west-being-taken-down-in-small-portions/   ). But we might want to note something else about Zacharias. There are serious questions regarding his past claims about some of his past positions and degrees (see http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2015/08/24/press-release-has-evangelist-ravi-zacharias-misrepresented-his-academic-credentials/  

The gist of the interview accessible above is this: if, according to Qureishi, Muslims faithfully follow their sacred writings, then not only will they be at war with Christians, they will join groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram. Though Qureishi acknowledges that the vast number of Muslims are peaceful, their being peaceful is because of many years of traditions that told them to despite what the Quran says. 

There is a problem here though. The Quran does have verses that tell Muslims to live at peace with others. One such verse tells Muslims to live at peace with one's neighbor if that neighbor desires to live at peace with them. In addition, we might also want to ask other Muslims about Qureishi's claims made in the above interview especially since Qureishi himself acknowledges that Muslims are a diverse group.

One of the key problems in listening to the Qureishi interview is his selective use of facts. Already mentioned was the failure to report the verses in the Quran that  preach peace. Another failure is in Qureishi's failure to give the full picture of Muhammad's use of violence. According to several sources, including material from investigative journalist Jason Burke, Mohammed's use of violence was in response to the injustices he witnessed at Mecca. Also visible at Mecca was the belief in many gods--polytheism held by many. From those observations, Mohammed associated the presence of injustices with polytheism. After those battles, Mohammed sought to install a utopia that would come about by people following the revelation he claimed he received from God.

Further, we should note Qureshi's comparisons between the bloodshed in the Old Testament and that of Islam, especially its earlier years. He makes the claim that the Quran orders Muslims to kill Christians for their beliefs while the people whom the Hebrews killed when claiming the Promised Land were receiving God's judgment for their sins. This is where Qureshi's exclusion of Mohammed's crusades against inequality and injustices at Mecca and other places when he was involved in prosecuting wars almost shows a dishonesty in Qureshi's comparison. On the one hand, he has no problems with what the Hebrews did because the then residents of the Promised Land were being killed for their actions. But unjust actions that Mohammed witnessed was precisely why he waged war first in Mecca, and then in the surround area and beyond and yet they are not mentioned in the comparison.

Qureshi's account of the Crusades also merits attention. For while Qureshi is quick to point out that the Quran promises eternal life for those whose jihad results in being killed in war, the Pope at the time of the First Crusade offered indulgences for sins in order to help raise an army to retake Jerusalem. In addition, the cruelty visited by the First Crusaders   on the residents of places like Jerusalem was horrendous.

And while Qureshi states that it took a thousand years for Christians to engage in religious wars whereas Muslims had been fighting almost immediately after Islam was found, there is a context for that. That context was the timing of the divisions in the Christian Church vs the divisions that occurred in Islam. When they did occur though, we had a long period of religious wars in Europe. But not mentioned by Qureshi is the fact that the Church relied on the violence of the state to help expand Christianity to other areas of the world. 

During the current time, we see many injustices forced on the people of the Orient. We see Israel's brutal occupation against the Palestinians, we see Middle East tyrants being supported by the West so long as these tyrants support the business interests of the West, we've seen coups and the supporting of terrorists. We should only note that Ronald Reagan supported both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. And yet, none of this is mentioned when comparing Islam to Christianity and the West.

The above is a very brief sampling of the inadequate and unreliable statements Qureshi makes about Islam. Should note here that I am speaking as a Christian Fundamentalist who adamantly disagrees with Islam's denial that Christ is the Son of God. But the gross inaccuracies made and selective use of historical facts  by Qureshi moves me to say that his description of Islam in the interview above contains too many inaccuracies for comfort.

But there is a problem greater than the content of Qureshi's comments. That greater problem is the fact that Christians are going only to fellow Christians not just for perspective and worldview, but for the facts on the ground. We can call this problem Christian insularity. We seek to learn about the world only from our own. And for as long as we do that, we will not only be unable to adequately evangelize others, we will lay stumbling block after stumbling block before the people we want to convert the most because we have misrepresented them when discussing history and current events. And all of these inaccuracies also serve to persuade Conservative Christians to support a war not just against terrorism practiced by extremists, but a war against another religion based on false statements.

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

April 22

To Russell Moore and his review of a book that explains why liberals always win culture wars. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

There are a couple of problems here. The first problem is the us vs them mentality in society. Conservatives vs Liberals. Those who know best vs the foolish. Good vs evil. How could conservatives who think this way possibly share society with nonconservative without seeking to control them? And how could conservatives who seek to control nonconservatives in society possibly understand democracy? Finally, what is the salvation status of Christians who have some political liberal or even leftist leanings?

Second, conservatives are not anti-utopian, they are post-utopian. In other words, all of the wisdom that is needed to live or experience the best life possible has been taught in past and followed in the good old days. It isn't that Conservatives who reject change and progressive ideas do so because they don't believe the utopian hype that often comes with these ideas. Rather, Conservatives believe that change has destroyed some mythical utopia that supposedly existed in the past.

As Moore has been warning people about the upcoming acceptance of same-sex marriage, I would like to suggest that the more we fight culture wars, the more we seek to unnecessarily control the lives of unbelievers in society. And the more we seek to control their lives, the less likely they will want to listen to the Gospel. So here is a suggestion, pursue culture coexistence rather than victory in the culture wars.

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

April 23

To Eric’s April 22 comment that responded to my claim that we had invaded Vietnam. He challenged that idea and this was part of the discussion on the Death by Government blogpost posted in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Eric,
You have the history backwards. Vietnam was actually divided to facilitate the expulsion of the Japanese after WW II. The French wanted take the opportunity to recolonize at least part of Vietnam. We had promised during WW II to help them do just that. When the French failed, we decided to prevent the reunification of Vietnam by first sending advisors to help sustain the dictatorship. in the South. The Geneva Accords attempted to address the division and the agreement made there was that the South would vote decide on reunification by voting on in. We ignored the Accords and maintained the dictatorship and that eventually became the Vietnam War, the war that included our invasion to prop up the dictators we favored and, in some cases, installed.

Now if you think I am revising history, we can discuss the subject by listing our supporting documentation.

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

To Eric and his April 22 comment that claim that the Left is responsible for all the murders committed by people like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. This was part of the discussion on the blogpost about death by government on the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Eric,
Whenever I read your accusations against the Left, I get the feeling that you are auditioning for something like, perhaps an Ann Coulter variety show, than trying to present a logical argument. .For it seems that you are more interested in being vehemently harsh than being precise. And your references to the Left indicate someone who is pretty much insular in their readings.

Certainly people like Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and others are guilty of murder, no argument there. But how are those Leftists who were murdered by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao responsible for their own deaths let alone the deaths of others? What about those Leftists who reject Lenin, Stalin, and Mao and who came after those three? They are responsible too?

Let me ask the same question in another way. Were all of America's founding fathers guilty of supporting slavery in our nation? And, a trickier question, were they all responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land?

Not too long ago, Bruce Frohnen wrote an article whose title far outpaced its content. The title was: 'Can Civility Be Restored To Our Campuses?' Frohnen went downhill from there by scapegoating the Left for the lack of civility on campuses. I say scapegoat because he never looked at what those particular Leftists were protesting as contributing to the problem. Now, do I feel some leftists contribute to the lack of civility on college campuses? Most certainly I do! But it has nothing to do with their Leftist ideology, it has everything to do the current trend, which Frohnen took part in, of externalizing evil and scapegoating the other side. After all, if the other side is evil, you must do all you can to silence them. And that is what Frohnen attempted to do in his article. And many from the Left, the Right, and Liberals have joined this trend.

We can't have civility anywhere for as long as groups externalize evil and scapegoat their opponents for the problems they see. For as long this is the trend, then each side will adopt the ends justifies the means ethic in trying to silence the other side. For Christians, it also means that we will start living out the prayer of the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying. In terms of how Martin Luther King Jr. described the West during the Vietnam War Vietnam, each side will be unjust to the other because each side will assume that it has everything to teach the other side and nothing to learn from them.

We can't be civil to each other when we can so easily demonize the other while putting ourselves on a pedestal.

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

April 25

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of John Calvin on the Regulative Principle for worship. The Regulative Principle states that the only ways by which we can worship are those that are commanded by God’s Word. Those ways of worship that have not been commanded are verboten and considered to be false worship.  This appeared in Heidelblog.

Personally, I think what has most hindered Reformed Theology is the regulative principle. All we have to do is to look at how it is stated here to see why. Note what is strongly associated, it is false worship and that which was not explicitly commanded from the beginning. 

Such not only causes us to start forcing Gentiles to live like Jews, as Peter was once accused of doing by Paul, and such not only forces us to approach worship as the Pharisees approached the law by paying attention to selected details and forgetting the spirit of what is involved, but it also denies both the implied change that Jesus spoke of when He said that a time will come when we will worship God in spirit and in truth and the changes necessitated by the death and Resurrection of Christ along with the Great Commission telling us to preach the Gospel throughout the world.

It is bad enough that this principle was applied to worship, but it often leaks out in other areas of life. When talking about fellow Reformed Christians about whether they should be involved in activism, the regulative principle is resorted to as people restrict their involvement to imitating specific NT examples or following explicit commands while ignoring biblical issues of justice or loving one's neighbor. It is as if the only practical theology we can learn is what we can imitate or what we are directly commanded to do.

This reliance on the regulative principle can, to some, make the New Testament as inflexible or irrelevant to life today as a literalist approach to The Constitution makes that document the same in answering today's new legal issues. In addition, we should note that no one consistently takes a literalist approach to The Constitution. Conservatives who claim to fail when they decontextualize the 2nd Amendment by removing the mention of the militia from the right to bear arms. Are those who follow the regulative principle far behind when they, as mentioned before, overlook the NT theology mentioned above?

There is a legitimate concern in using the regulative principle. That concern is that innovation can take us away from God's Word into self-worship. For innovation can separate us from the Apostolic faith that we lose essential connections with it. However, is forbidding all innovation, as the regulative principle does, the answer? Are there Biblical principles that can be used to guide our attempts to innovate?

On the one hand, because new issues and circumstances arise, theology must, at times, be new and fresh.  But that newness must never be allowed to separate us from or cause us to compromise the essentials of what has been revealed. For when it does, we've left the faith. But not allowing theology to be new condemns the essentials of our faith to irrelevance due to our inflexibility in applying the Gospel to today's new issues. And those who insist on prohibiting the new find themselves in homogeneous church groups that are unable to reach out to those who are different. The Regulative principle forces us into such groups as our rigidity in recognizing the issues people face in the world today blinds us to the new problems and concerns people experience today.

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

April 26

To Michael Severance and his blogpost that covers how Rev. Robert Sirico claimed that Christianity best protects the balance between the individual and the social. This appeared in the Acton blog.


The first question that comes to mind when reading about the interview with Rev. Robert Sirico is this: Which Christian view of anthropology provides the best blend of the individual and the social? Theologically conservative Christians lean toward one set of views on that balance while theologically liberal Christians lean toward another. To show the difference, we should note that theologically liberal Christianity leans more toward Socialism than than its conservative counterpart. In addition, without mentioning the details, Sirico's view of what Socialism says about people seems to be more the result of having used deduction than induction. We should also note that European Socialism is really a mix of a little socialism with some liberalism in the context of a global economy that is predominantly neoliberal.

Now if I was to take an inductive approach to Sirico's claims, I would have to say that theologically conservative Christianity does not best protect the balance between the individual and the social. Why? Because of its favoring of entrepreneurialism and business, it grants more individual rights and less social responsibility especially to those who are able to help the vulnerable to such an extent that it seems that there is an inverse correlation between having wealth and how much social responsibility one has. And if we examine the history of the Civil Rights Movement, we see that there seemed to be a greater reluctance on the part of theologically conservative Christian leaders and institutions to oppose racism than was seen in their theologically liberal counterparts.

From the article printed above, we see the great fault of theologically conservative Christians. That fault is the tendency to rely too heavily on deduction and/or to selectively use induction in answering questions like the one posed to Sirico For how does he answer the question, he speaks in general of the world views of Christianity and the Enlightenment while noting that Socialism is a product of the Enlightenment. In addition, he does not adequately use an inductive method to arrive at his conclusion and perhaps for good reason, historically speaking that is. For while he is content to compare the French and American Revolutions, he neglects to mention both the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land and America's horrendous treatment of Blacks both during slavery and afterwards. And many who participated in either ethnically cleansing Native Americans from the land or subjugating Blacks used Christian theology to defend their practices. He also neglects to refer to European colonialism that was practiced in the name of Christianity.

What He Was Really Talking About Was Democracy

Collin Hansen, a bigwig at the Gospel Coalition (click here for a bio), while recounting the end of a successful trip to Israel, captured a moment of reflection that should be treasured as he took note of a very insightful comment made by the Hebrew University professor, Moshe Halbertal. The line that caught Hansen's ear was this:

As Jews in Israel we don't know how to be a majority.

There is a given in that line that renders its intelligible. That given can be expressed by providing a conjunction. Below is one way of expressing what I think Halbertal was getting at:

As Jews who live in both Israel and a democracy we don't know how to live as a majority

Confirmation of the above modification can be found in a Hansen description of the voyage Israel is currently taking:

But now as Israel nears 70 years as a sovereign nation, Jews continue to debate how to operate a democracy.

As Hansen later reflected on what was said, he concluded the following:

if Israeli Jews don’t know how to be a majority, then American evangelicals don’t know how to be a minority

The article in which Hansen recalls all of this can be found here.  And what I would like to suggest, depending on the definition of democracy,  is that the words 'majority' and 'minority' should be interchangeable.

The basic question around which the above quotes revolve is the definition of democracy. And what Halbertal presumed with his quote was that democratic processes alone do not make a democracy. Now such must seem foreign to most Americans. But that is because, despite the many counterexamples that have existed in the world, we equate our democracy with elections. And we insist on that even though the former U.S.S.R, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and Iran had or has elections and we would  never consider any of those countries to be democracies. However, when it comes to us, we assume that because we have elections, we have a democracy.

So what is a democracy and do either Israel or the US have one?  Here we should note that elections are a necessary but not sufficient condition to being a democacy. That means that we can't be a democracy without having elections, but having elections does not make us a democacy.

What is a democracy? In terms of a state of being, a democracy exists depending on how the people of given nation share society with others. Does each of group  in a given society share that society with all the other groups as equals? That is that the nation, regardless of the demographics belongs equally to all of the groups that reside within. Jeff Halper, an Israeli activist and founder of ICAHD (click here) wrote the following in his book entitled An Israeli In Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel (pg 74 of the book):

An ethonocracy is the opposite of a democracy, although it might incorporate some elements of democracy such as universal citizenship and elections. It arrives when one particular group--the Jews in Israelf, the Russians in Russia (and, more evidently, in the former Soviet Union), the Protestants in pre-1972 Northern Ireland, the whites in apartheid South Africa, the Shi'ite Muslims of Iran, the Malayin Malyasia and, if they had their way, the white Christian Fundamentalists in the US--seizes control of the government and armed forces in order to enforce a regime of exclusive privilege over other groups in what is in fact a multi-ethnic or multi-religious society.  Ethonocracy, or ethno-nationalism, privileges ethnos over demos, whereby one's ethnic affiliations, be it defined by race, descent, religion, language or national origin, take precednece over citizenship in determining to whom a country actually "belongs." Israel is referred to expllicitly by its political leaders as a "Jewish democracy."

And so the question that is being implied here either to the Jews in Israel or Christians in America is this: Are we sharing our society  and nation with all others as equals?  

If the Jews in Israel and the Christians in America are sharing society and the nation with all other groups as equals, then living as a majority in a given society or nation is same as living as a minority. The only time when living as a majority is not the same as living as a minority is when different hierarchical statuses are assigned to the different groups which thus gives the different groups different roles in society.

It should be obvious that neither a signficant portion of the Jews in Israel nor that of certain Christians in America favor democracy over ethnocracy. Why? Because each group has felt entitled to reign in various degrees over their respective society and nation. The need for a Jewish homeland, which was very urgent even before the rise of the Nazis ,enabled some Jews to believe that, in the name of security and self-protection, they had a right to maintain a privileged status in Israel over all other groups. And though such a belief is wrong, it is more than understandable independent of the Holocaust--though the Holocaust increased that urgency exponentially. We Western Christians should never forget the gross atrocities that our ancestors would constantly visit on the Jews in Europe for almost 2,000 years. And even when there were no atrocities being practiced, Jews were rarely made to feel welcomed as equal citizens of the countries in which they resided. See, today's modern Zionism started as a secular European venture. It was never a sequel to the possession of the Holy Land by the Old Testament Israelites.

The source for the Christian sense of entitlement to take possession of America started with the belief that we were God's new chosen people who were entering into our own "Canaan." It continued along an assumption of our moral superiority, and now our "democracy" has been corrupted by greed and competition so as to deceive us as to where democracy's "finish line" is located. Thus, we have thought nothing of it when we have used our democratic processes to rule over others as a dominating majority--this is the concept on which the title of Hansen's article is based. Here we should note what is more important to us. Is sharing more important to us than greed and competition? If so, the egalitarian values of democracy would corrupt our free market. Or is greed and competition more  important to us than sharing? If so, then our democracy will be looked at as providing opportunities to compete for more and more power.

Returning to Hansen's article, other points could be added especially to the approach that churches in nations like Syria and Egypt take in interacting in their nation. Hansen continues along a partially different line of thought about the first Halbertal quote than what was pursued in this blogpost. And I think that his article is well worth reading and serves as a positive indicator that the Conservative Church in America could still change constructively in how it interacts with society. At least, that is my hope. For without it changing, calls for resistance and even revolution will sorely miss a Christian influence that Liberal Christianity contributed  to the anti-war and Civil Rights movements of the 1960s.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 23, 2015

Dec 17

To Michael J. Svigel and his blogpost on 3 different approaches Christians can take to experiencing the next Star Wars movie. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

There is yet another way to look at the different approaches to the movie Star Wars. Either we can be slightly distracted and entertained by the movie while also learning how different kinds of people interact with each other, or we can know more about the Star Wars universe than we do our own immediate world. 

There are two reasons why people pick the latter approach to their knowing Star Wars. The first reason is to exercise the privilege of not being in the kind of need that would demand our attention elsewhere.  The second reason would be to grab as much as we can from the pleasure of escapism because we have succumbed to fatalism. Regardless of the reason, to know more about the Star Wars universe than our own world does not help us to be good stewards of what God has given us as citiizens in a democratic society.

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

To Denny Burk and his blogpost on whether liberals are ready for the transgender revolution. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.

Why worry about a transgender revolution? Do we expect multitudes of people change?

And it seems that taking someone who wants to be 'transaged' backwards, which is the same as regressing into immaturity,  and trying to equate that with those who want to change genders seems to miss the mark. For as long as we are strongly complementarian in our sexual roles and expectations, people who neither relate to their assigned gender roles or fit in are the only ones who would consider a change in gender. In other words, the more we press a stric complementarianism, the more people with means will resist--though we should mention that there are other less traumatic ways of resisting.

Yes, there is a certain degree of complementarianism that exists according to God's Word. But perhaps we've taken it too far.

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

Dec 18

To Derek Rishmawy and his blogpost on the wrong ways, according to him, there are to talk about sin. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.

Perhaps another way to fool ourselves is to think that we can talk comprehensively about sin. For we see one of two faults in the above ways of talking about sin. One fault is that the talk about sin is correct but is incomplete and/or has errors. The other way is that the talk about sin totally wrong. Regarding the above ways, I would classify the sectarian way as the only way listed above which has no merit. For all it accomplishes is the externalization of evil and thus it puts us and our the groups we belong to into the role of the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying. 

The other ways listed above of talking about sin has merit and can be placed in conjunction with the other ways of talking about sin. The youth group way has the merit of talking about sin in relation to how we compare with others. The Millennial way has the advantage of recognizing the effects of previous sins and how they affect our lives today. The Mainline way recognizes the corporate sins committed by the groups to which we belong. This way of recognizing sin is overlooked most often by my fellow religiously conservative Christians. The evangelical way forgets how we sin against others either as individuals or in groups, but it is valuable in terms of how we sin against God. 

Thus, we should consider whether the 4 of 5 ways of looking at sin as described above are more incomplete than in error, though error is bound to happen when one's views of sin are incomplete.

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

Dec 22

To Collin Hansen and his blogpost on the top 10 theological stories of the year. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Of course, what is missing from this list of stories include Obama's terrorist use of drones to assassinate people, his fast-tracking of the TPP, NATO's involvement in the Ukraine, the terrorist shooting attack on a Planned Parenthood facility, the increasing wealth disparity in our nation, police brutality, and the Black Lives Matter movement.

There is a common theme around the stories cited is the absence of challenging conservative ideology,  the current political and economic structures along with the refusal to challenge those with wealth and power. Unfortunately, none of these absences provide a surprise to nonChristians outside of conservative political ideological circles. Thus, these absences serve as another reminder that Conservative Christianity is, however unintentionally, acting as a source of indoctrination to maintain the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power.

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


To Jordan Ballor and his blogpost on the Church’s social responsibilities in opposing injustice. This appeared in the Acton blog.

I've seen others struggle with the distinction between the organic and institutional Church. Tim Keller, for example, states that where individual Christians are working to correct injustices, there the Church is because is where believers are. But such allows the leadership of the Church to remain silent in the presence of society's corporate sins so as to not personally offend those with wealth and power. So as the Church claims to be in place of struggle for social justice through the actions of individuals while not speaking out directly to injustices, the Church is attempting to have its cake and eat it too.