Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 22, 2022

 Around June 16

To Bruce Frohnen and his article on what a true patriot, or conservative patriot, such as Edmund Burke is like. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There is more than one way to define what a conservative is. One way is to consider the context of location and ideology of a given individual. But such a context makes the definition of a conservative a floating definition. What is a conservative in the US was not what a conservative was in the Soviet Union. And what is a conservative capitalist is not a conservative Marxist. Thus, from this perspective, the often used distinction between conservatives and progressives fails us not just because what is a conservative and what is a progressive are contextually defined, but also because the contextual basis for the definition of a conservative ensures that neither conservatives nor progressives are monoliths.

Another approach to defining what a conservative is is to describe what one would call the ideal person and then call that person a conservative. That seems to be the approach used above. For how ideal is the person who can decipher what we should conserve from the past and what we should change. The problem is that we are all trying to preserve what we value from the past and to change what we think needs to be changed. But such does not make us all conservatives.

A similar problem exists when it comes time to the definition of a 'patriot.' The love of one's own nation is identified as part of patriotism and, just by that alone, it is easy to see how patriotism can become the opiate of nationalism. So Frohnen distinguishes between a 'true' patriot from a 'false' one. Of course, the ideal version of a patriot is the true patriot and, in this article, is embodied by Edmund Burke. And so one gets the impression that definitions are being crafted for the benefit of a message.

So then the article tries to define a conservative  and a true patriot by using broader or absolute standards such as those provided by Natural Law and Western Civilization. So-and-so is a conservative because they promote the following of Natural Law. Such is appealing when using an assumed universal definition of Natural Law. The problem is that Natural Law means something different to different people. Hitler believed that nature teaches us the survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism has its own either deliberate or default mode of survival of the fittest in a Capitalistic nation in order to prevent big government and to cut the social responsibilities of companies to society. The result is that people are more likely to be left to either fend for themselves or hope that a private charity group will help them. T

o those in the LGBT community, the same-sex behavior seen in hundreds of if not over one thousand species is proof that homosexuality does not go against Natural Law.  

And what about using one's work to continue Western Civilization, which includes Christianity, common law, and constitutionalism? Does a true patriot and conservative then promote practices and beliefs that break with what was promoted and used in Western Civilization? And while Frohnen's hero of the article, Edmund Burke, objected to Britain's imperialism, much of Western Civilization involves European imperialism including the colonization of the Western Hemisphere. With imperialism being so much a part of Western Civilization, how is it that remaining true to Western Civilization makes one a true patriot.

We live in a multiethnic, multicultural, multireligious society. So how does Frohnen's idea of a true patriot, which includes the Christian version of Natural Law along with the task of preserving Western Civilization, which is basically white,  work without being oppressive to some who have a different understanding of Natural Law and come from a civilization other than Western Civilization? After all, according to Frohnen, we should be willing to fight and die for the universal principles that our Christian, European heritage has provided.

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

June 17

To Heidelblog and Jon Payne for the part of Payne's article quoted by a Heidelblog post about Christians who agree with parts of theories like CRT, Critical Theory, and Intersectionality. The quote and the article presents these Christians in a very negative light. This post appeared in Heidelblog.

Jon Payne's complete article is linked to below:

    https://gospelreformation.net/the-courage-to-be-presbyterian/

What is really apparent among some religiously conservative Christian leaders, especially those who are from the Reformed Tradition, is this. Their black-white view of Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, Marxism, Intersectionality, and other views is demonstrated by the pejorative labels and descriptions they give to these views so that they implied that Christians can't hold to any significant portion of those views without compromising their faith. 

In so doing, these leaders act as if they have everything to teach creators and promoters of those theories and nothing to learn from them. Such a view is arrogant and that arrogance runs contrary to God's Word. In addition, their black-white views indicate that they have embraced authoritarianism. That is also demonstrated by how they speak with and about other fellow believers and religiously conservative Christian leaders. That kind of authoritarianism is the kind that can enable people to either follow abusive leaders or be those kind of leaders themselves. 

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

June 18

To R. Scott Clark and his article imploring Christians to be involved in politics as individual Christians in order to oppose non-conservative political agendas. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The above article moved me to want to be involved in politics. That is that the above article is promoting bigotry and discrimination against the LGBT community in the name of Christ. It is not enough for Clark that the Church, rightfully, calls those in the LGBT community to repentance in our evangelism. Now, employers should be free to look at those in the LGBT community and assume that they are not fit to represent their businesses as employees.

What is so radical about demanding that those in the LGBT community be treated as equals in society? During Jim Crow, those who worked to promote full equality for Blacks were called 'radicals,' 'agitators,' 'communists,' and 'troublemakers. Are we seeing a repeat here?

While many religiously conservative Christians, particularly those who follow the Anabaptist tradition, want to shun politics, others, like Clark, as evidenced in the above article, want Christians to be involved in politics in order to send the LGBT community back to the margins of society. At least that is one of the reasons Clark wants Christians to be involved in society. The apparent irony is that Clark, a 2Ker, wants Christians to promote at least a partial return to Christendom..

Of course what is left off of Clark's agenda listed above is war, militarism, guns, poverty, economic exploitation, and climate change to name a few issues. What is suggested then is that God's Word clearly stated that we should have laws that address Christian sensitivity and fear of a growing LGBT influence but it is silent on other issues.

The above is nothing more than a call for Christians to support the kind of right-wing political views held by Clark and others. Non right-wing views are demonized in the above article. When will Clark realize that he has partially conflated the midwest political views he grew up with with his Christian faith? When will Clark realize that he is no longer supporter of democracy, but rather a supporter of some level of Christian control over society?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 13, 2021

 Dec 16

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that defends the use of labels in categorizing people. This appeared in the Heidelblog

There is a valid use of labels and an all-or-nothing approach to using labels. The latter approach is seen in the pejorative use of labels and the attempt to reduce a person to the label we use. Even a valid of labels do not not try to fully describe a person with a label. Consider the label 'Marxist.' That might describe a person's thinking in general, but it does not even fully describe a person's ideology seeing that, for most if not all Marxists, one has points of disagreement with Marx. Thus a person could be both a Christian and a Marxist provided that that person does not agree with Marx on those points that flat out deny Christianity.

The pejorative use of labels attempts to describe ideas or people as being all bad and its opposite use as being all good. But which ideas or people are all bad or all good? In addition, the pejorative use of labels are often used in ad hominem attacks while some of the complimentary uses of labels are often used to promote an authoritarian acceptance of an ideology, person or group.

Understanding the limits of labels helps us to use them correctly. But to use labels without respecting those limits leads to the misuse of labels.

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

Dec 20

To R. Scott Clark on his blogpost that wholly condemns Critical Theory. He cites Carl Trueman as a supporting source for condemning Critical Theory. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The reasoning that the above post intends for us to employ regarding Critical Theory is that of a priori rejection. That since critical theory is so threatening, there is nothing good that can come from it. At least, that is what we would deduce from the above post and its support material.

But the problem that we religiously conservative Christians have is that we tend to use deduction way too much. Here we should note that deduction that can't be supported by inductive reasoning needs to be reexamined. And my my guess is that the above views expressed by both Clark and Trueman are partly contaminated by turf battles for influence and cultural preferences. I have found some of the work by those in the Frankfurt School to be very useful verified by observation. And thus critical theory has something positive to contribute to our understanding of the world.

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

Dec 21

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that quotes an article by Clay Routledge that claims that Americans are not becoming less religious, they are merely switching to religions that are pagan in nature. This appeared on Heidelblog.

Link to article cited:
    https://quillette.com/2018/12/27/from-astrology-to-cult-politics-the-many-ways-we-try-and-fail-to-replace-religion/

We might want to consider that one of the reasons, and certainly not the only one, that we have a departure of people from the Christian faith is because of the failures of the conservative Church to interact with society--that is a failure in its political pursuits. Early on, the conservative Church looked to dominate society in terms of its values and pursuits. And indeed it did. And the domination included white supremacy as seen in the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from most of America along with the subjugation of the black race first through slavery and then through Jim Crow. And many in the conservative Church were fine with that while most of the leaders who confronted white supremacy were from anything but conservative churches. Other tenets held to by many in the conservative Church included American Exceptionalism and Capitalism with its materialism.

Today's issues still include white supremacy and systemic racism, the latter of which many religiously conservative Christians are in denial of. These issues also include wealth disparity, climate change, and full equality for the LGBT community in society.  For each of those issues, most religiously conservative Christians favor continuing an old, dying status quo that favors continuing an economic system that sees continued increases in wealth disparity, the denial of man-caused climate change, and duty of society to marginalize, at least to some degree, those in the LGBT community. The problem here is that many Americans rightly understand that such positions are unjust and thus they now wrongly, but understandably, associate these injustices with the conservative Christian faith instead of just with many religiously conservative Christians who are also politically conservative.


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

Jan 10

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that claims because social media has been banning some, we might have to learn to get along without it. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The above articles seems to ignore the context of the actions it complains about.

We should note that just as technology makes gives us more abilities, it also makes us more vulnerable. And thus when people use technology that enables social media for destructive purposes, those who own that social media have moral responsibilities to society.

So when people spread false information about the pandemic or use it to coordinate violent attacks on people or the government, why is it wrong for social media to ban those responsible for misusing that media to the extent of harming others?

Plus, I would think that the first take away from this past week would not be the banning of some from that media. And, in fact, it isn't social media that is causing us to fight each other, it ourselves and our ideologies and cults that at doing that.

Ignorance Is A Terrible Witness

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

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



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

• Race is a social construct
• Institutions can spread ideas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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