Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 11, 2020

March 5

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that quotes Rosaria Butterfield and her article that talks about how people who have been identified as victims by Intersectionality might respond to the objective truth of God’s Word as it speaks to their way of life. This appeared in Ta

Link for citation:  https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/intersectionality-and-the-church-2020-02/

Another way of describing material and perceived or dignitary or psychological harm, perhaps in a partial way, is to talk about physical and emotional abuse that sometimes occurs in Christian approved relationships. I don't see conservative Christians objecting to the existence of emotional abuse when it occurs in marriage. And if it occurs in some marriages and it can occur outside of that too. I also I don't see conservative Christians objecting to the existence of the kind of perceived or dignitary harm those who were marginalized via racism experienced. To deny that is to close one's eyes and ears to history.

So the question is whether sharing objective truth about sexual issues can result in real dignitary or perceived harm in the audience. At this point, some conservative Christians want to deny that such harm is possible because the message against those who are considered to have some kind of sexual disorder  in terms of identity or orientation deserve discomfort as a way of calling them to repentance.

But the question of what kind of discomfort do those whose gender identity or sexual orientation deserve. Do they deserve any discomfort that they might experience about their lifestyles or is some discomfort a natural result  of being by confronted with God's Word while other discomfort is not merited because it it is outside the bounds of what God's Word says?

In addition, considering the history of Western Civilization with its treatment of those who were not European Christians, does Intersectionality make legitimate points about the abuse of others which has come from Western Civilization? And if Intersectionality does make legitimate points about perceived or dignitary harm and we close our ears to those points, perhaps that is a sign that we have conflated, to some degree, Western Civilization and Christianity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 6

To Gene Veith and his blogpost on why there is anti-Americanism among Americans. IN his blogpost, though Veith did mention some of America’s sins, he only recognized two emotions toward America: loving it and hating it. This appeared in the Cranach blog on the Patheos website.

America's significant sins are not limited to slavery and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land. The pervasive racism that has and still exists in America is not exhausted by how we treated Blacks during slavery and before and how we treated Native Americans. Latinos and Asians have also suffered from white supremacy in this nation. Jim Crow and the Second Jim Crow have survived the Civil War. Jews and Catholics were also targets of groups like the KKK. Women only began to emerge from their second-class citizenship because of the Sexual Revolution and the Women's Movement. Even whites experienced bigotry and violence from fellow whites because of their ethnic differences.

The racism that has and still exists in our foreign policies is also something to correct. As well as the exploitation of the environment and people practiced by our economic system.
Authoritarians, with their black-white thinking, will tend to try to limit our choices between their patriotism as a religion or the willingness to admit the truth about ourselves. And thus we get black-white reactions from those who either be in denial and love America or be accused of hating America. Though Veith has under reported America's sins, he, thanks to Chesterton, doesn't go that way entirely. But he does present our present choice as either loving our nation or hating it. When we see what the book of Hebrews says about not having our home on earthy, it would seem that there are at least 50 shades of gray between those two emotions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To a comment Chemical made in our discussion on patriotism and nationalism for the same blogpost involving the above comment. His comment can be read by accessing this link and waiting for the comment to appear.

Chemical,
the definitions of patriotism and nationalism vary based on the points people want to make. If nationalism is defined as self-rule with a self-awareness of justice and the global community, then I fully agree with it. To me, patriotism is the opiate of nationalism. The reason why I reverse the order you used is because patriotism includes the displays of emotion people have for their nation.

At this point it is best to fixate on the concepts rather than the specific words.


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

On approximately March 6

To Roger McKinny and one of his comments that argues for using the economic system specified in the Torah the model for our economic system. It is one that stresses conservative approaches to gov’t and makes the Church the only institution to help the poor so that government has no responsibility to help the poor. His comments appeared in the discussion section of Gene Veith’s article on Nietzsche and Puritanism on the Cranach blog located on Patheos

The issue isn't wrote the Old Testament too, it is what is the context of the Old Testament? That last question helps tell us why certain laws and practices were not continued during New Testament times.

The gov't in the old testament does not give us a model of how to structure gov't in the New Testament either. Why? That is because while the nation of Israel was God's people in the Old Testament, God's people is the Church in the New Testament. And Israel was a theocracy, we are not called to create any theocracies here. In addition, with the Church serving as the New Testament version of Israel, there are no structural constraints that the Torah places on governments today.

The Church is suppose to exist in all nations. And it exists as exiles somewhat like Israel existed during the Babylon exile--that is with some key differences--rather than as rulers or being at home, And note, that many of the civil penalties that existed during Old Testaments along with the dietary and other laws are no longer practiced now. There is no reason to believe that the structure and duties of Israel's gov't as expressed in the Torah was to serve as serve as to limit what services today's governments can provide. Israel existed as a theocracy, we not called to follow that. In fact, there is nothing in the New Testament that encourages your approach here. In addition, Israel's governmental structure changed throughout the Old Testament and finally ended up as a kingdom.

But you did forget a concern of the government that was clearly there in the Old Testament: that was to care for the vulnerable. This was partially done through the tithes given to the religious leaders. But it was also the concern of the King and the nation. To ignore the vulnerable, along with idol worship and breaking the Sabbath, were the primary sins Israel punished for. Ezekiel 16:48-50 shows what can happen when the poor are ignored--please note what happened to Sodom. In fact, leaders who ignored the vulnerable brought judgment of God themselves and the nation while caring for the vulnerable was equated with knowing God (Jeremiah 22:15-16).

Isaiah 58:6-7 tell us the duty of all the people of Israel. How is that the King was not included in that charge?
Finally, your model of thought strictly limits what any representative gov't can do for its people. According to your model of thought, gov't is only to represent those who are self-sufficient and is to turn a deaf ear to the needs of the vulnerable. In a participatory gov't system like we have today, that means that it is the people who are turning a deaf ear to the cries of the vulnerable. However, if you insist on doing that, realize that it was Torah that required people to not so harvest their fields so that the poor can have something to eat (Lev 19:9-10)-- a principle that goes against the maximize personal profits code of Capitalism. That could only be enforceable by the gov't in a non-theocratic government. In addition, Deuteronomy 10:17-18 states that it is God who executes justice for the vulnerable and who loves and provides for the strangers. Tell me what the Torah said about taking care of the alien.

Your model of though clearly forgets the discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments and opportunistically forgets the context of what was commanded. It opportunistically focuses on form rather than the heart of God's Old Testament laws.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 19, 2020

Jan 24

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about how unwise it is to listen to the claims of hypocrisy made against Christians by unbelievers because we are not following the Bible the way they think we should. Though Clark had specific unbelievers in mind like Jonathan Merrit and Rachel Held because at least Merit holds us accountable to the Old Covenant,  Clark seems to have generalized his claim to more unbelievers This appeared in Heidelblog.

The Old Covenant, Jonathan Merrit and others aside, we cannot dismiss charges of hypocrisy simply because unbelievers are making the accusations. Why? Because unbelievers are not just concerned with us following the Old Covenant, they are concerned with our personal actions, way of life, and political support for policies and candidates they believe violate what Jesus taught.

There is another reason why we should be concerned. That reason should be that we should not provide any stumbling blocks to those who are in position to hear us share God's Word. And considering that we are saved by grace, what harm is there in admitting wrongdoing when it is rightfully pointed out by an unbeliever? Perhaps our willingness to listen to unbelievers even when it entails correction just might make them more willing to listen to us when we talk about sin and the need for the Savior.

We should note that when we call ourselves Christians, everything we do or say, not do or are silent on can be associated with the Gospel. And that should strike great fear in our hearts because we all often fail to rightly represent Christ in how we treat others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Approximately Feb 11

To Gene Veith and his article that claimed that Christian teaching on sex was being criminalized when Dr Juhana Pohjola was being investigated for hate speech while preaching against homosexuality. This appeared on the Cranach blog on the Patheos website

Veith's article wasn't entirely accurate. A key statement in question which has brought an investigation is:

Instead, the scientific material unequivocally proves that homosexuality is a disorder of psycho-sexual development

That statement comes from the first article referenced by Veith. We should note that that statement is false according to scientific material. It is false according to medical associations like the APA. Also note that making such a statement goes beyond teaching what the Scriptures teach.

We should also note that, in the past, the Church led the charge for criminalizing homosexuality, in particular some of its sexual practices. In this nation, even masturbation was counted as a criminal offense. And yet, how many of us would object to bringing back those laws as strongly as we object to the investigation.

Pohjola is being investigated for inciting hatred against a group. And isn't that the challenge that faces us today. How can we preach God's Word without both compromising and inciting hatred, which often occurs when we overstate our case. Romans 1 is stands clearly against homosexuality. But in the context of Romans 1-3, does it portray homosexuals as being far worse sinners than the rest of us? Romans 3:9 says NO! In addition, when referencing natural law, we need to recognize the fact that homosexuality, at various levels, is found in approximately 1,500 species.
We need to determine whether it is the mere teaching of the Bible or our overstating of what the Bible says that is being investigated here. We also should take great pains to not describe homosexuality in ways that cause others to hate homosexuals. Why? Paul certainly didn't talk about homosexuality that way while describing it as being against God's Word. So why should we?