Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 11, 2024

 June 15

To Heidelblog and David Hall for the part of David Hall's articles (Part 1 and Part 2) that review what went on at the most recent Presbyterian Church of America General Assembly meeting.

It seems that's some labels have acquired unexpected implied traits. So is the case with the the conservative use of the labels 'conservative' and 'progressive.'

Conservatives seem to always imply infallibility when using the word 'conservative' and being fatally flawed with the 'progressive' label. And so, that reminds me of a Martin Luther King Jr. quote from his speech against the Vietnam War:

'The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.'

Because of their use of the above mentioned implied traits, conservatives appear to be replacing the word 'Western' with the word 'conservative' in the above quote. And so it seems that it is conservatives who are actually  putting themselves in an even a less flattering light than they intend to put progressives in due to the traits they imply when using those two labels.

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

Aug 3

To Heidelblog and Michael Wear and his article advertising his book that labels the political divisions in America and the Church 'Political Therapeutic Deism. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The full article can be found at:

    https://mereorthodoxy.com/political-therapeutic-deism

It is understandable as to why politics has a divisive effect on the Church. It is because, among other issues, politics deal with an array of moral values. And which political groups we most associate with can partially reveal the moral values about which we are most concerned. And our differences can arise from having different priorities of moral concerns people have.

But since no political ideology or party encompasses all moral values about which we should be concerned with as Christians, each political ideology and party are not only incomplete, but inconsistent as well. Take what is called pro-life for example. To reduce the meaning of being pro-life to concerns about abortion produces vast inconsistencies in what it should mean to be pro-life. Likewise, to not include concerns about abortion is to produce a deep inconsistency with what it should mean to be pro-life. And so which political ideology or party is consistently pro-life? And here we should note that being consistently pro-life does not mean that we have covered all moral issues with which politics is involved.

Since I am not now able to read the whole article, I will speculate as to what isn't covered that can explain what the writer wanted to explain. The divisions occur when we act like the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying (Luke 18:9-14) with our moral concerns. That occurs when we exalt ourselves over others because they don't share our priority of values or even values while neglecting to be even aware of the moral values that our own political views fail to adequately address. What James said in the second half of chapter 2 in his epistle also explains why we have divisions.

That Phariseeism is something to avoid almost at all costs. Why? Consider the plight of that Pharisee from the parable.

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

August 27

To Heidelblog and D.G. Hart whose article was quoted in part on HeidelBlog. His article  reviewed Tim Alberta's book: <I>The Kingdom, The Power, And The Glory</i>. Alberta's book is about the Evangelism and its recent political ventures.

Hart's full article can be found at:

    https://lawliberty.org/book-review/whats-left-to-say-about-evangelicals/

The trouble with Evangelicalism is, like Christian Fundamentalism, how it is defined. The original definitions of both terms focused on their religious beliefs. But then, because of the traits of some of its members, Evangelicalism's working definition began go deemphasize its religious beliefs and began to revolve around traits that had nothing to do with Evangelicalism's religious tenets just as what happened to Christian Fundamentalism.

As with  Christian Fundamentalism,  the change in the working definition of Evangelicalism was in part due to the desire of some Evangelicals to distance themselves from fellow Evangelicals because of their traits, in particular their political views. And so some Evangelicals decided to separate themselves because of their political disagreements rather than to simply admit that Evangelicals do not form a monolith. Had they done that, it is possible that Evangelicalism's working definition would still revolve around its religious beliefs.

History shows that Evangelicalism's venture into the political realm started decades earlier that what Hart claimed. It started with its opposition to the government's efforts to force racial integration onto some Evangelical institutions such as Bob Jones. What followed that became the focus on abortion. And what ignited the biggest Evangelical passion for politics was the 2015 Obergefell Decision by the Supreme Court. Since then, a concerted effort by a mixture of Evangelicals, Christian Fundamentalists, and Roman Catholics to '<b>take back</b>' America to its Christian roots has begun. Unfortunately, America's Christian roots were determined greatly by a demographics that no longer exists.

I can't speak to Hart's comments on Alberta's book since I have not read his book. But there are things about what Hart said that indicate that, like what a baseball catcher does with pitches, he is sometimes more interested in framing events and descriptions than being fair and objective. Take the following quote from Hart's article for example:'unpeaceful protests on January 6, 2021'

How is it that a violent action taken to overthrow the results of a legitimate election in an attempt to keep the sitting President in office can be legitimately described as being merely an 'unpeaceful protest'?

OR

'As dubious as the diversity rationale now appears—how could white Protestants be outsiders in white Protestant America?—the study of evangelicals coincided with the need to understand a new and vigorous electoral bloc, namely, the Religious Right. '

The problem with that quote is in the question asked. Instead of asking how could white Protestants be outsiders in a white Protestant America, Hart should have asked how did white Protestants BECOME outsiders?  In addition, curiosity about Evangelicalism might have been initiated by JFK's Presidential campaign and questions about whether he could be elected because of his Roman Catholic affiliation. Also, what diversity rationale is Hart claiming to be dubious?

OR

'The election of 2016 practically took all scholars by surprise (some needed smelling salts). It also gave legitimacy to scholarship that explained Donald Trump’s popularity among white evangelicals. Several evangelical scholars went to work to explain the racism, psychological instability, and misogyny that contributed to born-again Protestant votes for Trump. At the same time, evangelical leaders and pundits piled on with books of their own (for instance, David French, Russell Moore, and Peter Wehner) that show evangelicals to be hypocritical Christians and unreliable citizens. What used to be a success story of an obscure group rising to prominence in American life, evangelicalism is now one of the many social ills responsible for spreading illiberal sentiments among the American people.'

With Evangelicalism's ties to America's past which Hart mentions early in his article, perhaps America's history of racism also began to shed light on pathologies that exist in Evangelicalism. Here we should note that Hart is a historian, and yet he does not attribute any of the problems in America's racist past to Evangelicalism's present social standing.

IMO, if my fellow Evangelicals and Fundamentalists want to do well in politics, which is what Hart wants them to do, then they must see the current political battle in the West between Democracy with equality vs authoritarianism with hierarchy.  They need to see this distinction and understand which side that they are currently, and unfortunately, on. I hasten to add that how Hart sees Evangelicals and Fundamentalists would do well in politics could very well differ from how I see them doing well.

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

August 30

To Heidelblog and Chris Gordon for the part of Gordon's article that discusses why people reflexively follow Pastors who present themselves as omnicompetent. The title of the Heidelblog post is different.

Chris Gordon's complete article can be found at:

https://agradio.org/blog/the-cult-following-of-the-omnicompetent-pastor

I am not writing to disagree with anything that Gordon said. In fact, I agree with what he wrote. But I wanted to add something that might help us understand why, even in not troubling times, people are looking for authoritative sounding voices to follow. 

It has to do with what Fromm described as the passive authoritarian personality type, or the authoritarian follower to be less verbose. Such people are not just attracted to authoritative sounding voices, they are also looking for simplistic answers that they can understand. But most of all, they want a, what I call, nanny thinker who can tell them what to think. They want to listen to someone with whom they can reflexively agree.

Fromm said that the basic motivation for the authoritarian follower is fear. It can be a fear because of the confusion of the times. But the fear is more general than that. The fear comes from a need to be attached to something significant. And so the more authoritative a leader can sound or the more credentials a leader can portray themselves as having, the more personal significance can be gained by attaching oneself to that person.

One factor that can mitigate the fear that authoritarian followers can have is to become more independent in their reasoning. But a balance is needed here. That is because there is an authority figure who is omnicompetent to speak on all subjects. That is God. And He has spoken to us in His Word.  But what muddies the waters here is how does one interpret God's Word. We do have guides from the past and present, but they are never infallible and were often so influenced by their times that they sometimes read ideas into the Scriptures. And though there are issues in which there can be divergence in thinking among those who believe in Christ, there are other issues in which we can't afford to tolerate diverse views.

But the above introduces a complexity that many authoritarian followers cannot tolerate at the current time. And so the solution is to try to have ourselves and our fellow believers be more like the Bereans who tested everything by the Scriptures (see Acts 17). They both depended on the Scriptures and had a degree of independence so that they even tested the words of the Apostle Paul by the Scriptures. 

And so we need to move people to become a mixture of being dependent and independent. We need to be dependent on God's Word and independent enough from people, even the authoritative speaking kind, so that we can learn from them without reflexively accepting everything they say.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 13, 2022

 April 3

To R. Scott Clark and D.G. Hart for Scott's blog article that quotes a part of Hart's WSJ article on the subject of Christian Nationalism. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Hart's article can be found at:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-flag-and-the-cross-book-review-finding-and-defining-christian-nationalism-11648826801

Not having a chance to read the whole article, I will comment only on what is quoted above. The trouble is that when Christian Nationalism is brought up, one is tempted to think in terms of extremes. For example, some are tempted to think of dominionism. The above article describes scenarios that are less extreme than that but it still portrays Christian Nationalism in somewhat strong terms.

Now if we replace the word 'Nationalism' with the word 'control,' we allow for a wider range of attempted Christian power over the state and society. For there the question becomes how much control should Christians exercise over the state and society while still have a democracy. Of course, then we have to define the word 'democracy.'

So just because a group of Christians don't support or promote Christian nationalism doesn't mean that they are not in favor of enough Christian control over the state and society to the extent that it would at least partially compromise our democracy. We should note that because of the control that has been and continues to be exerted by others over the state and society, our democracy is already sorely compromised.

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

April 4

To Chuck Chalberg and his article on M. Stanton Evans and his love of conservatism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

A sign that a favored ideology has become a religion is when one believes that they have nothing to learn from any other ideology in that sphere. Such a belief implies that that ideology is omniscient. Just think, we sometimes believe that which was created by man can have an infinite view of reality.

I've lived near urban areas in the East for most of my life but I did attend and graduate from a college in Oklahoma. One of the differences I noticed between those two settings is that while the former provided more of a heterogeneous environment in terms of demographics, the latter was more homogeneous. That disparity causes some to not only to misunderstand the decisions that people from the other side make, it causes them to religiously elevate their own setting on a pedestal that can be idolatrously high. I hope that is not the case here.

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

April 5

To Cory Higdon and his article that asks how much pluralism and our society tolerate and still survive. In that article he points to what Roger Williams attempted to create in Rhode Island. This appeared in the American Reformer.

Of course the alternative to what Williams wanted to establish was to be found in Massachusetts where Puritans were persecuting and even martyring Quakers. 

This intolerance and fear of those who are different seems to be a fixed cost of the human condition. It exists in pluralistic settings as well as in monistic settings. And thus the question of how much pluralism can be tolerated seems to be the question of the intolerant as the ponder when they should entitled to seize control. And let's face it, us religiously conservative Christians lean more towards being intolerant than being open and accepting. It is part of our authoritarian bend.

So perhaps before answering the question of how pluralism can we tolerate, we could look at Europe to see how much pluralism they are tolerating. We need to look at Europe today rather than Rhode Island of yesteryear because we are more similar to Europe in the present than to the colonies from the past. 

We could also look at the context of some of the practices we find so distasteful to see how long they will exist before being changed. I would point this out, the Apostolic Christian Church had to tolerate far more differences in society than we do. So how did the Apostles and those who followed them respond to the difference they had with society?

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

April 7

To R. Scott Clark and Carl Trueman for Clark's blogpost that quotes from a book by Trueman that, in part, complains about how what was once considered to be unassailable truth is now being called into question and traded in for fantasy. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Both traditionalists, regardless of one's tradition, and old people often depend too much on the past to interpret and respond to the present. And it seems that is the case here. In the good old days, what was unassailable was white supremacy and it had a more pervasive presence in society and our culture than it has today. The LGBT community had to hide because their expressions of love for their partners were considered criminal acts. What was also unassailable was the subjugation of women by men even after women won the right to vote. The sexual revolution was in large part a response to that oppression.

So what we are seeing today is quite normal for when long standing social injustices are being addressed. For not only are many of the social injustices being undone, but many practices associated, either in a contributory sense or  coincidentally, with those injustices are being challenged too. And the same goes for the long overdue stopping of societal and state persecution of the LGBT community.

Trueman's error here is that he sees only one time period in which people are employing the looking glass. In reality, each time period, including the good old days, employed its own looking glasses. So what we are seeing, in some cases, is a trading in of one looking glass for another. 

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

April 8

To Christopher Owen and his article on Willmoore Kendall's evolving view on democracy. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

People who think in absolutes have trouble making distinctions. And that seems to be the problem that Willmoore Kendall had according to Christopher Owen.

With the definition of democracy, for example, Kendall could have gone the cultural Marxist way of defining it. After all, that definition is based on what Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural  address. Jefferson  advocated majority rule but warned against using majority rule to oppress minority groups in the nation.  We should note here that Jefferson's words were superior to his actions. The cultural Marxist definition of democracy is found in neither the equality of either outcomes nor opportunities. Rather, the cultural Marxist view of  democracy is found in the equality of ownership in that democracy is a a state of being where  the state and society belongs equally to all groups. Such a view of democracy provides an adequate defense against what has been called ethnic democracies or ethnocracies where democratic means are used to provide some degree of dominance by and privilege for some ethnic group(s) over any minority ethnic groups.

And if only Kendall had borrow Yates notes on the Constitutional Convention, he might have noted that Madison favored the rule of rich, as did those who favored the Federalist position. For the Federalists used a the word 'democracy' as a pejorative for those who held to different political-economic views that would challenge the financial privilege of America's elites. In fact, it was Shays Rebellion and widespread dissent because of the poor economics of that time that spurred the writing of The Constitution.

It seems that without referring to democracy as a state of being, as an equality in ownership by all ethnic groups that make up the people, we miss what democracy and equality are really all about.

Which Kingdom Is Which?

In the beginning of Mark 7, Jesus confronts the Pharisees of His day about substituting their traditions for God's Word (click here for the biblical account). Why bring that up here? It is because D.G. Hart (click here for a bio) has, in one of his blogs, written about the danger of "baptizing" (Hart's term) the politics of any politician or religious person who is advancing a cause or crusade. That "baptizing" may be done by either the person behind the crusade or some admiring supporter. And Hart takes this baptizing of causes and crusades to task from what is called a Reformed 2 Kingdom Theology (2KT) approach (click here for his article).

The above reference to the beginning passage of Mark 7 was made because Hart's approach to the subject comes strictly from his Reformed 2KT model of thought (click here and there for quick reads on Reformed 2KT). And he is using that model of thought to interpret situations and determine how Christians should respond. Here we should note that developing models of thought by which we interpret the world around us and our obligations to God and others is almost a fetish for conservative theologians. The upside of that is that sometimes those models of though give us a better, though still partial, picture of what the Scriptures say about things. But even on a good day, because our models of though give us partial pictures of reality, we need to be careful not to substitute our model of thought for the Scriptures lest we become like the pharisees whom Jesus rebuked in Mark 7.

 The essence of 2KT is found in its name. All Christians belong to 2 distinct kingdoms: a given kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God. And followers of 2KT promote varying degrees of separation between the two kingdoms. As noted by one of the cited references above, Hart teaches that the two kingdoms are so different that they are separate. And by separate, that means that neither the Church nor the State can claim any legitimacy in correcting the other. And what logically follows the teaching that the Church cannot not correct the State is that the State cannot do anything that can be considered sin. The State can be wrong in terms of violating its own laws or perhaps international laws--can't remember Hart's position on that last set of laws.  But outside of that, the State can't be charged with practicing any sin regardless of how it treats others. We should also note that Hart's own political views seem to be a conservative libertarian and, if memory serves, seems to follow one of his heroes, J. Gresham Machen,  in terms of political views.

What Hart wants to state in this particular article is that we need to use 2KT to prevent the alignment of the Gospel with political and social causes. And that applies for both liberals and conservatives. Thus, he states that if one cannot associate Trump's policies with God's Kingdom, then the same applies to Martin Luther King Jr.'s agenda. He states this because some were saying that those Christians who support Trump, also support what seems to be his unbiblical political pursuits. And the only way Christians can do that is to employ 2KT. Likewise, some say the same of those Christians who support the Democratic Party and its agenda. And 2KT, especially Hart's version, comes into play because it is saying that the State cannot sin unless it violates its own or possibly international laws. And even then, those violations are not technically sins according to Hart.

Thus, Hart's point is that Reformed 2KT, though not condemning the Republicans, the Democrats, or the work of Martin Luther King Jr., prohibits any kind of association of the Gospel with these agendas.

Now according to Hart's version of 2KT, since it can be consistently stated that nothing that the Republicans, the Democrats, nor King and his followers promote can be associated with the Gospel, the question is is whether that is also true according to the Scriptures. In other words, are all political policies and laws equal in terms of their moral standing or are some political policies and laws more moral, according to the Scriptures, than other policies and laws? According to  Hart's 2KT, Trump's policies and King's agenda rest on the same moral plane.

Before addressing that point, we should note that, according to 2KT, the standards that determine who can be in good standing in society are not identical to those that determine who can be in good standing in the Church. Likewise a given state and the Church are not given an identical set of standards and responsibilities. But not having the exact same standards and moral obligations doesn't imply having no standards and moral obligations in common.

Thus, in comparing the present agenda of Donald Trump and the past agenda of Martin Luther King Jr., can we say that these two agendas are on the same moral plane? And if we cannot say that, are we automatically "baptizing" one person's or group's agenda over the other's?

We should note here that the problem with Hart's 2KT rests with historical counterexamples. Did the Nazi state sin when it invaded other nations or conducted the Holocaust? Was the Nazi state guilty of violating the commandments prohibiting murder and theft?

But it's not just the Nazi government that must be required to account for any violations of the commandments prohibiting murder and theft as if it set the minimal standard of evil, it is all governments and states that must be held accountable for practicing murder and theft. Using a counterexample like the Nazis' reign of terror points to the Achilles' heal of Hart's 2KT.

And yet Hart has a valid point even when we cannot say that Trump's policies are as moral as King's agenda. Even though King's agenda is more moral than Trump's, we still must resist any urge to equate the agenda of those working to advance social justice with the Scriptures. So though, we can't "baptize" King's agenda over Trump's, it is wrong to deny the sinfulness that King saw and personally experienced from any state or government. In fact, if we use Hart's 2KT to deny that states can sin, we are substituting traditions for the Word of God as illustrated in the above Scripture passage. Thus, though Hart has some valid points to make in his article, they remain biblically problematic when applying them to real life.





 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 19, 2016

Oct 5

To Jordan Ballor and his blogpost claim that Christianity is the friend of liberalism. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Two observations must be used to assess the analysis in the article above. The first observation seems to challenge Siedentop's view that the modernity emerged from the battles between the popes and  kings. And so when Siedentop writes:

The conception of society as founded on ‘natural inequality’ was giving way to a conception of society as founded on ‘moral equality,’ as an association of individuals rather than an association of families.

we should note that the emergence Rome over and apart from European kingdoms did not bring in a moral equality, it ushered in a new basis for inequality. So what replaced the 'natural inequality' was a spiritual inequality or a spiritual association rather than an association of families. Much of Western history shows an assumption of supremacy and thus rule is based on the faith of a predominant group. Persecution of those from the different branches of the Church, let alone persecution and conquest over those from other faiths, give ample evidence against the idea that the emergence of any subset of the Church from kingdoms introduced a moral equality. In addition, other associations were also in play such as association of race and economic class. We really never have achieved a true moral equality either here or in other Western nations.

As for the relationship between Christianity and liberalism, the Church's intramural wars between Protestants and Catholics or between different branches of Protestantism were not cured, for the most part, by leaving the Church to its own devices. Rather, secular liberalism and, in some places, the necessity of the times caused the introduction of moral equality in the Church. Without liberalism and, to a lesser extent, necessity, we might still resemble what we see in warring factions of Islam today.

All too often, we take for granted what people say they want for all without judging it by how they treat those who are different. And it seems that this article is merely another attempt to establish Christianity's supremacy in the West perhaps in an effort to preserve as much of the old status quo as possible. We should note that one cannot believe in such a supremacy and moral equality at the same time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 14

To Bruce Ashford and his blogpost on how Christians should respond to our loss of privilege and power in society. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

It seems that Ashford prefers that force our ways onto people through a tyranny of the majority rather than through a strong-arm tyrant. And that is our problem. We are looking to rule over others rather than to share power with them. And thus, we make it more and more difficult to see why more and more people are rejecting Christianity. Are they rejecting it because of the Gospel message or is it because we are attempting to lord it over others?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and the Dennis Prager video that was part of his blogpost on the size of government being used to define the Left and the Right. This appeared in the Acton blog.

It seems that in explaining the differences between the left and the right, there seems to be no limit on over simplification for some. And that is what we have in the above video. There are only two ideological positions, according to the video, and all results can be deductively arrived at by using single criteria definitions to define the two positions. In one corner, the Right believes in the most limited government possible while the Left believes in an ever increasing growth in government size and power. And never the twain shall meet.

But history begs to differ and that is always the problem for those who want to define reality exclusively by deductive reasoning. For example, Socialism is always categorized by those on the Right as being the same as big government. But Libertarian Socialism does not believe in the state. So where is Libertarian Socialism in the model of thought presented in the video? Where is anarchism, which is also on the side of the Left, in the model of thought presented by the video?

In addition, the difference between liberalism and the much of the Socialism from the Left is not over the size of government, but who has power both in the government and in the workplace. Liberalism promotes elite-centered rule where elites dictate what is good for the rest. In much of Socialism from the Left, especially from the Marxist viewpoint, it is the workers who should have the bulk of power both in the government and the workplace. And thus, big government alone does not constitute the Left. We can have both small or big government under the Left. But control over that government must be more in the hands of the workers than under the control of elites.

IN addition, an error that is suggested, if not implied, by what was said in the video above is that power and government authority are one and the same. Anyone who has studied power in the business or government setting knows that having power is not the same has having authority. Martin Luther King Jr. had a tremendous amount of political power while he was focusing on racial inequality while holding no governmental position. In addition, we could consult the labor history in the US to note how private businesses and their owners had tremendous power and could harm a great number of people without government assistance. In fact, it was the combination of workers protesting and government finally listening that curtailed many of the abuses that occurred in and out of the workplace.

Yes, the government has the power of force through either local and federal law enforcement or the military; but such was established by God according to the Scriptures (Romans 13). So why would Christians, like myself or many who are associated with the Acton Institute, want to side with him on this point?

In addition, since the military is part of the government, the bigger our military, the bigger our government--or so the above logic would state. But there is a disconnect for Prager here. Big government must be opposed only when the non military side of the government grows. Why? Because the size of our military depends on the number of our enemies. But why doesn't that logic apply to the other parts of our government? After all, isn't it true that some businesses can act as enemies of the people as part of their pursuit of profits? Applying the same logic that is used to determine the size of our military, shouldn't the government be big enough to handle any businesses that would act as a threat to the people?

In addition, what if those from the private sector, like churches, private charities, communities, and families do not want to take adequate care of those in need? Shouldn't the size of the government depend on how many people are in need? In addition, shouldn't the government represent those who are in need as much as it represents business people and others? Therefore, shouldn't the amount of help offered by the government reflect that representation?

Government is like love, size doesn't matter, fidelity does. A small, impotent government provides as much protection for its people as a large, corrupt government. That is because the power that is absent in a small government does not disappear, it finds its resting place in the private sector. And thus, the question becomes this: do we want private sector elites to possess the power that is absent in a small government or do we want to distribute power democratically by having workers and others share power with elite-wannabes? History shows that the consolidation of power is dangerous. That is a truism whether that consolidation occurs in the private or public sectors. The video above states that the consolidation of power is dangerous only when the government has it.

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

Oct 15

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost video featuring D.G. Hart’s interview on C-Span’s Book TV. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Link to Hart’s interview
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?414716-3/billy-graham-sarah-palin&start=470

There is some very interesting and useful historical information given by Hart here, but he also demonstrated how one's answers to questions can sometimes be greatly determined by what one wants to emphasize.

The definition of what is an evangelical and whether Hart considers himself to be on provides an example of emphasis determining definition and categorization. He defines Evangelicals as though who believe in having a personal relationship with Jesus and having undergone some kind of born again experience. These criteria are rather ambiguous in nature. For if we define these references by saying that an Evangelical is one who believes in Jesus for the forgiveness of one's sins and that one must have personally come to faith in Jesus, then Hart must consider himself to be an Evangelical. My feeling is that Hart doesn't consider himself to be an evangelical because of how his family background stands in contrast with  his current reliance on a confessional faith. But here we should note that the definition of what is an Evangelical is broader than he would like to admit.

I found his distinction between conservatives and Evangelicals to be partially problematic. My conversations with Evangelicals is that they believe that they emphasize The Constitution and the intentions of our nation's founding fathers  as much as they emphasize morality. Part of the problem here lies in the fact that Evangelicals have a religiously inspired mythical view of both The Constitution and the  founding fathers which revolves around an over emphasis on the role of the Christian faith in both the writing of The Constitution and in the lives of the founding fathers.  We should note that non-evangelical political conservatives also seem to hold to a mythical view of The Constitution and its emphasis on individual liberty. For what is missing in the interpretation of many conservatives of the The Constitution is its historical context. That The Constitution was written in response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion and its purpose was to create a stronger Federal government that could better respond to insurrections and populism in an effort to protect a status quo that benefited the new American elites, many of whom were involved in writing The Constitution.

Finally, in discussing Evangelicals and politics, I was surprised  by how little significance Hart attributed to the abortion issue. My understanding is that today's Republican Party has, for the most part, taken Evangelicals for granted over the abortion issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 17

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on why evangelicals are so split on whether to vote for Trump. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.

Certainly, Carter's model of thought has merit. But it isn't the only model of thought we should employ. For without Trump, we still have this nagging binary approach to voting. And though the nomination of Trump has caused great strain on that approach, one of the main reasons for voting for the Republican nominee is the one of the main reasons why many Americans vote for the  Democratic candidates they vote for : they are selecting the not-them candidate. In other words, the reason why many conservatives vote for Republican candidates is because they are not Democratic candidates and vice-versa for nonconservatives. Thus, both evangelicals and many other Americans are voting for the same reason.

Why do we stay fixed on the this binary approach to voting? One reason is that, for multiple reasons, we don't want to or cannot change.  Change requires more energy than normal. In fact, nothing requires energy like change does. And for many, they don't have the energy to put into changing because of multiple reasons.

Another reason for maintaining our voting pattern is because we tend to prefer authoritarianism. And with authoritarianism, sticking to tradition is a primary reason for resisting change. In fact, with authoritarianism, there is a great deal of sensitivity to even hearing about challenges to tradition. That sensitivity causes people to respond with anger and/or in attempts to bully those who are considering breaking with tradition.

Now that authoritarianism can come in two different packages. One package is tailored for individual figures. The other package is made for the group. And the one that is made for the group is a part of tribalism. Tribalism occurs when group loyalty becomes high. Tribalism occurs when group loyalty trumps commitment to principles and morals. And the result of tribalism is the embracing of a moral relativity that says what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. That is why many Democrats can criticize Trump for his indiscretions while refusing to hold Bill Clinton to the same standards and vice-versa for many Republicans. With tribalism comes the authoritarianism of the group. The group must not be questioned or there will be wrath and/or bullying to keep people in line.


Those evangelicals who are breaking with Trump to vote for Clinton are still engaging in the same voter approach as many evangelicals, as well as others, who are voting to Trump: they are voting for the lesser of two evils. In fact, evangelicals are no different than many other Americans. They either will not or cannot change from voting for the lesser of two evils, for the not-them candidate. That is the voting tradition that we seem either unwilling or unable to break. And for as long as we continue voting that way, we will be presented with the kind of choices that we have this election year.

Our major political parties know all of this. And so they do not select candidates who are looking to improve things as much as they nominate candidates who qualify as not-them candidates. They give us candidates who are merely different from the candidates from the other party. And such an approach continually sets the bar for the quality of our candidates at a lower and lower level.

In short, we evangelicals are not that different from other Americans in how we vote And it is our inability or refusal to adapt to the new conditions of having a continual choice of horrible candidates provided by our two-party/binary system that is causing our demise. And it is our embracing of authoritarianism, either individual authoritarianism or that which comes with tribalism, that not only prevents us from changing, it makes us see our self-destructive binary approach to voting as a duty to continue. Who would have thought that the land of the free and the home of the brave are actually serving inner tyrants?

Everybody Else Does Tribalism

I really didn't want to write another blogpost on tribalism but when I saw a reformed blogpost defending it, I felt that a response was required. D. G. Hart wrote such a defense on a blog he shares with John R. Muether called Old Life (click here for info about the blog and D. G. Hart). The post itself is called Didn't God Want The Israelites To Be Tribal? His post was a response to an article written by Jonathan Merritt on the Neo Calvinists in which he accuses them of being isolationists and tribalistic amongst other things (click here for the article). Here, Hart both defends the tribalism practiced by the Neo Calvinists as well as attacks Merritt for making the accusations. This blogpost will be based on both Hart's blogpost as well as the comments that accompany his post.

Hart deals with Merritt's challenge to Neo Calvinists for separating themselves from worldly influences. Merritt had complained that Neo Calvinist birds of a feather flock together when it comes getting input. They read Calvinist blogs and books while attending Calvinist conferences and churches. In contrast to this intellectual monastic approach to the world, Merritt suggests that Neo Calvinists would do better to imitate his move from Atlanta to New York City and leave their spiritual ghetto to live in a heterogeneous environment. 

Hart sharply criticizes Merritt on both points. First, Hart uses the Israelites as an example of how God's people were to separate themselves from the nations around them. But then recognizing how the New Testament changed things, Hart goes on to say that that same spirit of separateness was followed by the New Testament Church. Thus, according to Hart, though Merritt might be able to handle the interaction with nonChristians, ministers need to think of all who are in the flock including those whose faith might be compromised by mutual exchanges with nonChristians.

But Hart misses some points here. First, the physical separation practiced by the Israelites in the Old Testament was explicitly commanded by and carried out within a specific redemptive-historical context that does not apply today. In addition, Hart is simply wrong in how he thinks Christians are called to separate themselves from the world. We only need to refer to the Great Commission and the Paul's distinction on which immoral people Christians should shun (click here). In both cases we are called to go out into the world and be with the heterogeneous population that makes up the world.

But perhaps the biggest problem with Hart's criticisms of Merritt here is Paul's life. In Book of Acts, Paul goes to a Greek temple to preach the Gospel (click here). His sermon reflects a significant exposure to Greek thought. And though we could say this supports Hart's view that some Christians could handle pagan Paul was a leader, realize that we are all called to fulfill the Great Commission, not just our leaders. With the relevancy of Christianity dropping in our Post-Modern world, interaction with the world seems necessary for all Christians. 

With regard to tribalism, we should first pay attention to a proper definition of the word. The working definition of tribalism used by this blog is that tribalism occurs when loyalty to a group trumps commitment to principles and morals. The end effect of tribalism is that of adopting a gang mentality that says right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. Here self-restraint flies out the window as avarice, ambition, and/or fear frees one from the fetters of moral self-control. I use this definition because the actual definition of tribalism revolves around the high degree of loyalty one has to one's group (click here).

Now we should note that the news of theologians losing self-restraint does not stir the same fear in people as when political or military leaders do, but it does maintain the precedent set by those with wealth and power and it disqualifies one from challenging the tribalism of others. Here we get to the core of Hart's objections to Merritt's accusations against the Neo Calvinists. How Hart responds to Merritt here is to say in effect, so what! According to Hart, not only does everybody employ tribalism, it is the lifeblood of every group. And not only that, Hart states that God sanctions it seeing that the Israelites employed it during Old Testament times.

Therefore, according to Hart, those who accuse others of tribalism are being both trivial and hypocritical. But is Hart correct in saying that everybody employs tribalism? And is he correct in saying that since it is such a part of the human experience, it is wrong to criticize tribalism in others? The answer to both questions must be no.

Yes, we all belong to groups. But tribalism is more than just belonging to a group. It involves maintaining a degree of loyalty that is so high that supporting the group takes precedence over other commitments such as to principles, morals, and we could include God. Thus, remaining silent regarding the sins of one's own group shows tribalism. But such silence also shows complicity. This is what German citizens who were forced to tour Hitler's extermination camps by Allied forces during WW II discovered. When our own group is wrong or sins, then there are times when we have a choice of showing whether we are ashamed of Christ and His words as stated in Luke 9:26.

Any loyalty to a group which competes with our principles, morals, and commitment to God should appear to be unbiblical to the casual observer let alone the committed Christian. But something else must be said about Hart's reaction to Merritt's article. That something else deals with the authoritarianism that is thriving in today's world. This authoritarianism is making George Orwell's book, 1984 (click here for quotes) prophetic. We could easily define authoritarianism as occurring when truth is determined by the credentials of the source of some content rather than the facts and logic of the content itself. So when people are encouraged to flock to a certain group of speakers and writers because of their credentials, we have the beginning of authoritarianism.

But a disturbing part of authoritarianism can possibly occur when those same people are discouraged from listening to or reading those outside the group because only the strong can listen to or read outsiders without becoming corrupted. It is disturbing because such isolates people from the rest of society. And those who tend isolate people whom they rule over all too often do so because they are involved in running abusive relationships or cults. The isolation from outside sources facilitates the loss of accountability for the leaders and helplessness for the rest.

Of course, there is a milder negative result to the isolation Hart supports and this has been mentioned before. That milder result is that those who have so isolated themselves lose the ability to relate to those outside their group. Thus, their message to their peers becomes irrelevant.

I don't think Hart fits in the category of being a Neo Calvinist. And if I am right about that, we still should not be surprised to see him defend self-isolation and tribalism of Neo Calvinists. Why? Because Hart's own groups favor self-isolation and tribalism.  Tragically, it has become part of the Conservative Christian culture in America. Thus to admit Merritt is right about the Neo Calvinists, Hart would have to admit that his own groups are wrong too.

For all of our handwringing about the growing secularism in our nation, perhaps we need to pay more attention to our own faults. People like Jonathan Merritt, however imperfectly, are trying to point out some of those faults. Our faults just might be one of the reasons why the world is passing us by.

But before finishing, there is something we need to add to the context of Hart's analysis of Merritt here. If we are going to be Biblical, we will admit to having more relationships involving one party exercising authority over another than those not following the Bible. If we are going to interact with the world, we need to be careful not to be corrupted by what the Apostle John called "lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life." In addition, we are called to come out from the ungodly as Israel did from Egypt. But our calling says that we are to come out from them by being different. So anyone who is going to fully address these subjects from a Biblical perspective has a delicate balancing act to perform. So perhaps one can say that Merritt erred some on laxness in terms of balancing the issues. But it is without a doubt that Hart erred on the other side of laxness so that not only does the Conservative Christian faith more closely resembles a cult by what he defended in the Neo Calvinists, it becomes less and less relevant to those living in the world. In addition, when we declare that we have nothing to learn from those outside our group, we show that we need to hear Martin Luther King's analysis of the West regarding its participation in the Vietnam War (click here for the source):

The western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.