How Should The Church Identify Politically

 The important question of how Christians should identify politically was given some good input by a Christianity Today article by David Robertson (click here for a short bio).

I could review the whole article (click here for the article) but that would take away from a very important point that Robertson makes about the Church's political identity. I will use a quote from his article to show his point but will vary from his views as to why the quote is important. That quote is made in the following quote:

I thought of that title when I read the various competing propaganda from the Evangelicals for Trump/Biden groups. If these groups are representative of American Christianity, then the Church has already been defeated. Why is that the case? Is it wrong for individual Christian leaders to support a political party or candidate? Of course not. We too are citizens. But we are also citizens of another kingdom and when we start confusing the two – claiming, or creating the perception, that the good news of Jesus means he is endorsing one or other of the candidates - then a line has been crossed.

 
The point of the quote is to warn against conflating our faith with a particular political ideology or party. In other words, we can't identify the Church and the Gospel with any particular political party or movement. To see Robertson's reasons why we shouldn't do that, you need to read his article, which is well written and makes some very good points.

There are two reasons why we cannot confuse what our faith says with our political leanings. First, if we conflate the faith with our political views, we will find that our understanding of the Faith will be more determined by our political views than by the Scriptures. This is a point that Robertson makes while citing the views of Francis Schaeffer. Another way to put it is to say that if we confuse our faith with our political views, what we think the Gospel is will become a servant of our political views. And that is where the Gospel a spiral of change that can end up separating us from the Gospel itself as our understanding of it continually changes and is determined by our political views.

However, I believe that our political views as Christians are more important to us and the Church than Robertson gives credit for. Why? It is because I believe that politics should be considered a subject in practical theology where there is enough ambiguity in the Scriptures to give some general guidance but not enough details for the Gospel to be identified with a given political ideology.

But once we master not letting our political views control what the Scriptures say, what else is there to say? What we should note is that if we conflate the Gospel with a given political ideology, party, or teachings of any individual politicians, we have prevented the Church or a given individual Christian from speaking prophetically to that ideology, party or individual. For if we equate a given political ideology, party, or words of a given politician then that ideology, party, or individual can assume the role of speaking prophetically to God's Word than vice versa. And in fact, that is what we see in the world today with people dictating to the Gospel regarding what the Scriptures can and cannot say.

We should note that the Scriptures come from God while our ideologies and political parties are the creation of people. And that point should be nonnegotiable for all Christians. However, we should note because of our sins and faults, occasionally the outside world can correct some of how we Christians interpret the Scriptures. They can do that not because any of our political ideologies are superior to the Scriptures, but because we can be prone to misunderstand the Scriptures for a number of personal reasons.

Politics is important for Christians especially if we should treat it as a subject in the field of practical theology, which I think we should. But the source for what we know about the Gospel comes from God, through the Scriptures, rather than from man because of whatever insights we might come to realize.

 

 

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 9, 2016

 Either Nov 4 or 5

To David Robertson and his Nov 4 response to my Nov 4 comment. In his comment, Robertson claimed that I was completely unable to describe what equality is. The original blogpost was about vendors refusing to provide service to a same-sex wedding. This appeared in the Wee Flea blog

David,
your notes are both clarifying and confusing. They are clarifying in terms of your penchant for making negative personal remarks about me. They are confusing because as much as you say I don't answer your questions, I already have. You asked what I mean by equality. IN one of previous notes, I defined equality for the LGBT community in society. I wrote the following on November 3:

So why do you have a problem with what equality means? Take the SSM issue for example. Wouldn’t equality mean that those from the LGBT community would have the same rights as those who are heterosexual: the right to work and live as they want just as heterosexuals have the right to work and live as they want. And part of living as they want would be the right to marry the person of their choice just as heterosexuals can.

I was very specific regarding what it would take to enable those in the LGBT community to experience equality in society.  So how can you say that I haven't answered your question about equality?

Establishing equality for a group depends on where their rights are not being recognized. During the Jim Crow era in the States, establishing equality meant something else because they didn't suffer inequality in the same way that the LGBT community does today. For Blacks back then, having the unencumbered right to vote and run for office along with the right to eat, work, live, and go to school where they desired was establishing equality for them. In other words, having the same rights and opportunities that all other groups have constitutes being equal. And that point should be clear from how I described what would make those from the LGBT community equal in society today.

Then how is my understanding of marriage bizarre? Viewing marriage as a complete union between two people is bizarre?

Remember that marriage in both of our countries is an institution for all in society. And society consists of both Christians and nonChristians. And the answer to your question about two brothers, a question I anticipated, is obvious from my previous answer. But what you want is a single source, like the Scriptures, that authoritatively tell us what we can and cannot do. And this is one of the key differences between us. That while I recognize the authority structures taught in the Scriptures, IMO, you seem to go beyond that and embrace an authoritarianism that does not know when to turn off the authority switch and work with others as equals in determining what laws we should pass and what kind of society we should have. In the meantime, you seem to be trying to paint the LGBT community and their practices as a threat to society which merits sanctions against at least some of their practices. Have you ever considered that the part of what Romans 1 teaches us is that homosexuality, though it is not normal in terms of how God designed us to be, could be normal among unbelievers? And if it is normal in terms of what we expect because man has fallen into sin, why are we trying so hard to suppress so many things through law.

Have you ever worked with any homosexuals or had close personal friendships with any? I have and that is regardless of the fact that they know what I believe the Bible says about homosexuality. In fact, some of those friends of mine and I have discussed it and we can because they know that I respect them as equals. They also know that we can because I very much appreciate their contributions to society, to my family, and to my own life.

Other than that, the counterexamples your bring up work only if one selectively employs equality. Your counterexaple of stealing does just that. It leaves out what was said about equality being measured in terms of opportunities and rights and focuses solely on possessions. Your bringing up polygamy and incest forgets the feasibility  and equality problems the former poses and the health and equality problems the latter poses. And this is despite the fact that I already addressed those points.

The real key issue here is that of authority and its use or abuse. It seems that you believe that we cannot relate to nonChristians as equals when it comes to sharing society with them. It seems that you believe that Christians must impose Biblical laws and principles on nonChristian members of society lest things become unmanageable. Unfortunately, Church history does not give Christians much evidence to support their right to have authority over nonChristians in society. Our past, and even current persecution, of the LGBT community shows why we should not rule over them. Our own intramural wars, colonialism, and empires give ample testimony as to why we should not rule over nonChristians. And yet, you want Christians to use the Bible to rule over nonChristians in society through the laws government passes.

And while we discuss these things, you continue to make negative personal remarks about me. And I am trying to think why ministers would assume the right to speak that way to me when we are all like the publican from the parable of the two men praying. Just as your negative personal remarks provide obstacles for me to take you seriously, Christians' efforts to control and impose their religious views on nonChristians through legislation make it very difficult for many of them to want to listen to the preaching of the Gospel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 7

To Joe Carter and his blogpost containing 12 recommendations for the Religious Right. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Recommendations #2, 4, 5, 6,10, 11, and 12 are very good suggestions. However, there will be disagreement on how to implement some of those recommendations. For example, does religious liberty for all include the inclusion of those who do not have a BIblical view of sex who want to participate in SSM or its exclusion? Doesn't legally prohibiting SSM because of what the Scriptures say about sex and marriage deny the religious liberties of those who don't hold to the Biblical view?

As for recommendation #7, the rejection of theocracy is not equal to the prevention of some kind of supremacy for Christians over the rest in society. And when we have some kind of supremacy, we don't fully have religious liberty. For liberty - equality = privilege. And the absence of theocracy does not equal the absence of supremacy especially when we measure supremacy on a continuum. The absence of theocracy simply means that there is no complete control over society by Christians. Paternalism is another way by which Christians seek to control over society. For with paternalism, Christians insist that the Biblical statements on a given individual issue be made law because of what is good for society. So Christians are trying to exercise a measure of control over society for society's sake. Again, the SSM issue comes to play here. One of the reasons why many Christians opposed SSM was because they believed that traditional marriage is essential for human flourishing and that society was not big enough for both traditional and same-sex marriages.

Or another way by which Christian paternalism can be exercised is for the government to grant special privileges and resources for the Church in order for the Church to take care of more and more of those who are in need. That means that instead of the government pitching in to help those people, it should bless the Church both financially and with political power so that the Church can have the resources to do the job.The Church, in essence, becomes the government's social service military force except that the Church does not take orders from the state. It is a way of making Christianity predominant in society without insisting on a theocracy. We should also note that after a certain threshold, the more the Church tries to replace the government in helping those in need, the louder the Church says that the government is not to represent all of its citizens, especially those citizens who are vulnerable.

As for recommendations #4 & 8, should we refuse to put those who have other political ideologies on trial or try to dethrone those conservatives who denigrate the character of either liberals or leftists? Should we do the same to liberals and leftists who try to do the same? If we are going to have a democracy, then we need to readily listen to and work with people from all sides otherwise we will be seeking control over them rather than sharing power with them.

As for recommendation #9, since politics and culture are so intertwined, it is too difficult to say that one should care more about the one or the other. It is the case that both culture affects politics and politics affects culture.

In short, those of us who are religiously conservative Christians, regardless of whether we are politically conservative, have a penchant for authoritarianism. That is because the Bible legitimately uses authority structures as a framework for so many of our relationships. As a result, we may not be able to turn off that authority switch when dealing with society. Just because we are not pushing for a theocracy doesn't mean that we are not seeking to have authority others in some way, shape, or form. Those who cannot turn off that authority switch probably embrace to some degree authoritarianism. And the problem with embracing authoritarianism, is that we have little patience with those who do not fall in line with our agenda.

A real democracy for a pluralistic society requires democratic processes as well as democratic state of being. That democratic state of being includes a preference to share power than to seize it. That state includes a concern for and solidarity with those who live in the margins of society so that we are not just pressing our own demands, we are pressing their demands as well. A true democracy is the sum of democratic processes and a democratic state of being. The latter can never be achieved without the former and the former without the latter simply results in the hijacking of democracy whether the hijacker is an individual, a small group, or the majority of people.

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

To Mark Howard and his blogpost on politics in America and the Church in Iran. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

We should note the similarity between the effects of the Shah's rule over Iran with that of those who seized power after the revolution. That similarity can be called guilt by association. Whereby Christianity suffered significant setbacks with the rise of the revolution but is now growing, so too many Muslims suffered much because of the Shah's westernizing of Iran and that led to acceptance of Ayatollah Khomeini back in 1979.

In addition, just as the pendulum swung in one direction under the Shah, how far the pendulum is swinging now is due to how far it was pushed before.

Both points here must be remembered when trying to understand Iran's current state of affairs as well as how we should work for change in all nations including our own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost about bringing back child labor but doing so without without the abuses of the past. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Kids as young as 16 already work. To allow children under 16 to work is to increase the supply of labor in the job market where the median age and average educational level for low skilled jobs have been rising. Of course, one of the accommodations for allowing younger children to work would be to establish an even lower minimum wage for them. Yes, that serves the interests of some corporations, but what does it do for the overall family income in which economic hopelessness is on the rise because of the loss of adequate paying low skilled jobs?

In addition, as one who taught college, I saw the conflict many students faced between putting in enough hours of work to pay their bills and putting in enough hours in their studies to get a true education. All too many times, the latter suffered significantly because of the former. Should we do the same on a wide scale with children who are younger than 16?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 8

To Joe Carter and his blogpost evaluating the different approaches to voting from a Christian perspective. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

What needs commenting on is the quote from Jeremiah. For unlike the exiled Jews in Babylon, we American Christians have an earthly citizenship in America. And thus, we bear a responsibility for both America's prosperity and how it obtains that prosperity. So it seems to me that we shouldn't just pray and work for our prosperity, we should pray and work for justice so that our welfare doesn't come at the expense of the welfare of others either here or abroad.

Christianity And Violence

The first part of the title of David Robertson's (click here for a bio) blogpost was: 'Did The Church Spread By Violence?' (click here for article). This article was also posted in British Christian website, Christian Today (click here for the same article, different location). The answer to the question is a little hard to find in his article. Why? Robertson meanders for a while before he actually starts to answer the question. And meandering points to a discomfort with the question. And quite frankly, the history of Christianity should make Christians, especially conservative ones like myself, more than just a little on edge when even considering the question.

Robertson starts his article by focusing on why some people have problems with the Gospel and Christianity. These problems revolve around the behavior of the Church and its use of violence to grow. For Robertson, these questions focus in on a very tiny list of objectionable historical events: the Crusades, the burning of witches, and the Inquisition. With the latter two of these historical events, Robertson tries to have his cake and eat too by acknowledging that there was sin and problems in the Church at that time, but that the number of those killed was not nearly as many as what he says some unbelievers have said it was. However, with the first two of those time periods, Robertson tries to distance the Church from the violence the violence practiced then by asking if it was the Church or some other entity acting in the name of Christianity that committed the violence.

Robertson then goes on to discuss the Early Church and then the definition of the Church before he directly addresses the question stated in the title of his article. 

Robertson wants to answer this question historically and so he recommends a couple of resources. He also claims to have an adequate knowledge of history to be qualified to address this question. He then goes on to attack secularists for how he says they portray Christianity by either inflating the number victims and then judging all Christians by the acts of some.

But there is slight of hand in all of this. Robertson's deception is found in his reduced list of historical events dealing with Christianity and violence. He limits these events to the Crusades, the burning of witches, and the Inquisition. And here, Robertson is being either disingenuous to an educated audience or presumptively hopeful that his immediate audience does not know enough history. For the history of Christianity and violence is not confined to these three events.

The first association of Christianity with violence came after the Battle of Milan (312 AD) where Constantine claimed that God had given him his victory. After that point, Constantine had the Cross put on the shields of his army. It should be noted however that as Constantine legalized Christianity in the Empire, he was somewhat tolerant of and used the symbols of other religions for a while, but he later took an aggressive stance against them. However the first person who really deserves credit for using violence to spread Christianity or suppress other religions was the Roman Emperor Theodosius who reigned a few decades after Constantine. Under Theodosius, Christianity became the official religion of the Empire and adherents to pagan religions as well as those who belonged to heretical cults were sorely persecuted.

Robertson could have also mentioned the numerous religious wars that took place in Europe (click here). There were at least ten such wars during the time of the Reformation in Europe and the British Islands. Of course, those wars do not include the on-again, off-again cycle of violence Christians practiced against the Jews in Europe.

Robertson also could have mentioned the violence used to spread Christianity by the force used to establish and maitain the British Empire as well as the violence used by Americans to take land away from the Native Americans. Certainly, violence and Christianity were not the only factors in the spread of the British Empire or in the expansion of European settlers in America  However, violence was used to secure the British empire and Christianity rode in on its coattails. The same could be said of other European Empires that expanded to other continents such as the Spanish Empire. With the spread of this empire came the spread of the influence of the Roman Church in much of the Americas, especially in South and Central America.

Meanwhile in America, some of the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land was done explicitly in the name of Christianity. Some of America's earliest Christian European settlers saw themselves as God's new Israel while they viewed the land here as their Canaan. Thus, violence played a role in the spreading of Christianity in America. We should also note that in the earliest times of the colonies, religious intolerance gave way to the use of violence between Christians of different denominations. For example, Puritans use to persecute and, in a few cases,  even martyr Quakers. We should also note the violence practiced much later on by the KKK after Reconstruction. The KKK claimed to be a Christian organization.

We should note that today, American Christians don't necessarily practice violence themselves to spread their religion. Rather, as the Church did prior to the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions, they have supported wealth in power as America was establishing a global hegemony. And with that dominance came a partial spread of the American way of life including avenues for American Christianity to spread to other nations. So here we could possibly say that American Christianity uses the violence practiced by its government to spread its influence even when the American government's intended use of its violence had nothing to do with religion.

The point of this post is not to give a historical accounting of how the Christianity used violence to spread through the world. Rather, the purpose of this blogpost is for me to ask my fellow religiously Conservative Christians, or as I sometimes refer to them as my fine, fellow flaming fundamentalists friends and family to be brutally honest with ourselves when answering questions regarding the dark times in Christianity's history. It seems that for many Christians, and, according to the second part of the title of Robertson's article for him too, Christianity's dark times in history has created some apologetic nightmares. And now we Americans, and perhaps the British and Scots too noting that Robertson is Scottish, we find ourselves in a recently arrived at, post Christian environment and we are tempted to say all we can to stop the bleeding. But not being honest about our moral failures in the past, such as Robertson fails to be in his article when he reduces Christianity's use of violence to spread to just 3 events, only accelerates our free fall from our former place in society.

Any historian reading this article can easily tell that I, myself, am not a historian. However, even I can see the glaring weakness in arguments like the one Robertson uses to disassociate the use of violence and the spread of Christianity. Such faulty arguments can only discredit us. And our loss of credibility makes sharing the Gospel that much more difficult and unnecessarily so.

In modern times, the American Church itself rarely, if ever, uses violence to spread its influence. Instead, the Church, as it has often done in the past, relies on the government's use of violence to act as in order to create the government's coattails on which the Church can ride on. And unless we are willing to be upfront with a significant number of moral failures practiced by the Church in both the past and present, we will be unable to share the Gospel with any significant degree of integrity.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 19, 2015

The comment below was published because it was awaiting moderation. It wass listed here because of the length of time in which it has been awaiting moderation. This comment has now been published.



Aug 11

 To David Robertson and his blogpost podcast covering a number of issues such as Turkey, prostitution, and immigration. This appeared in Theweeflea blog.

Whether the discussion was on Turkey, prostitution, or immigration, this is the first program I’ve heard where conservative voices were not just echoing the concerns of those on the Left, but looking at the solutions from a similar perspective.

This might not seem true especially regarding the piece on Amnesty International and prostitution because many on the Left see the sex industry as a matter of freedom. But there are voices on the Left that have condemned that position and who favor the solution suggested in this program that we criminalize the purchase of sex rather than the selling of it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Aug 17

To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost quote lamenting how court decisions requiring businesses to provide goods and services to bi-sexual party is the end of religious liberty. This appeared in Heidelblog.

How is it that preventing discrimination proves that the sky of religious liberties is falling? The same court principles that dismantled Jim Crow, which some used religious beliefs and the Bible to defend, are being applied to protect the those from the LGBT community from being discriminated against and marginalized.

For those who see these court decisions as a blow to religious liberties, let me ask the following question: Are you still free to attend the church of your choice and to use your religion to publicly protest these court decisions? If so, why complain that those from the LGBT community are now free to pay for goods and services from any business they choose to patronize?

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

Aug 18

To Marc Vander Maas and his blogpost consisting of a podcast interview of Samuel Gregg on economic liberty. This appeared on the Acton blog.

The logic used to so pair economic and religious liberties is rather manipulative. To cite China first tries to prove the association by example and fails to consider what other variables could be involved, besides economic freedom, in the increase in religious interest there. One might consider another example where the market is much freer than that in China and see where religious interest is decreasing. This is occurring in America. And the reduction in religious interest also has been waning more in other free market societies such as in European countries. So if the correlation between economic freedom and religious interest seems to be inconsistent, how can a follow up to correlation, that is a cause and effect relationship, be established?
Describing the conversation as being manipulative can also be said of the distinction made between self-interest and selfishness, the relationship between work/risk and rewards, and envy. For example, selfishness was defined as being irrational in overemphasizing the importance of a desired object while self interest is rational. But isn't the importance of an object relative according to the person desiring it? More importantly, though, isn't selfishness related to self-interest so that rather than associating selfishness with an object, we should measure in terms of the degree self interest plays in determining our priorities and making decisions?

Likewise, note the association made between those who work the hardest or take the biggest risk with who deserves the most wealth.  Currently in our economy, wages have either stagnated or decreased per the skill level of many jobs. In addition, wages can be, and have been, reduced simply by increasing the supply of labor and those who control that are those with wealth. But note how work and risk are put on the same level. Those making the most money are not necessarily those who have risked it all by starting up their own business, but it is made by those who risk what they have by playing stock market. And one of the ways to increase the reward shareholders receive from their stock holdings in a publicly owned company is to freeze or decrease the wages that many of the workers of that company  make, And please note that the only time a publicly owned company receives money from the sale of stocks is from the sale of originally issued stocks.
Finally, envy is tied with the desire to redistribute wealth. But here, the redistribution of wealth has a similar role as the revision of history. Its fairness depends on the accuracy used in the beginning. It is not wrong to revise history when the original version was slanted. Likewise, redistributing wealth is fair when the original distribution of wealth was unfair. And whether the original distribution of wealth was unfair depends on how fairly the role of each person involved is valued and on how well were the interdependencies factored into the original distribution of wealth. Interdependencies include factors outside the company that contribute to its wealth. Physical and social infrastructures contribute to the wealth of companies. So does the quality of the society in which a company exists. And the question becomes whether the original distribution of wealth is fairly paying for the support it has received from the outside.

Those who assume that the original distribution of wealth was fair seem to be the ones who claim envy is behind the call for the redistribution of wealth. Rarely to the same people admit that the hoarding of wealth by the wealthy can be fueled by envy or related vices as well. And usually it is the same group that values risk over work and believes that labor depends more on capital than capital depends on labor. And here we should note the work of Thomas Piketty who has observed that more and more wealth is being inherited than earned.
Other points could be addressed, but it is enough to stop here. We should note that the more economic liberty is paired with religious liberty, the more likely that the association is because it is mamon that is being worshiped and served rather than God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost lamenting the percentage of people who would elect a socialist as President. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Aren't we being a little selective when we only accuse those who have less of being envious? Isn't it possible that some who have hoarded wealth have done so out of envy of their peers? And what is wrong with the redistribution of wealth if the original distribution was unfair? Also, are people like Sanders objecting to the lack of income equality or to the degree of income and wealth disparity?

Finally, before putting electing a Socialist in such a bad light, wouldn't it be more informative to educate readers on the different kinds of socialist approaches and on one of the basic tenets of Socialism: workers' control of production.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 20, 2015

May 14

To Denny Burk and his blogpost on how it is Christian business owners who are counted as the "least of these" in Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.

What is at odds with Burk's application is the listing of those who are being helped. The least of these are those shunned by society and who can offer no incentive for us to help them. Does that sound like successful business owners? Or does this show a less restrictive definition for the word 'brother' in this particular passage? Here we should note James 2 in talking about who is poor and the transition in reference made in that chapter.

That words can have multiple meanings is an observable fact when one reads the scriptures. That context helps determine the meaning words will have is also an observable fact. What is also observable is how too many of us religiously conservative Christians have made the same-sex marriage issue all about us forgetting how we have tried to marginalize the LGBT community in society. So if we are persecuted for having first persecuted others, can we be counted as the least of these? And isn't this claim to be the least of these just another way to rally fellow Christians around making everything about us?

Perhaps we need to talk to those we have marginalized in society to learn about their experiences and perspectives. Again, how is it that the least of these refers to those who have been victimizing others?

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

Please note that the reason why the next 2 responses were blocked. It was to limit the conversation on a moderated board. Limiting the number of exchanges is a reasonable practice. Other comments were allowed.

May 15

To Jim Heetderks and his May 15 response justifying corporations paying as little taxes as they can. This appeared in the blogpost about churches paying taxes in Heidelblog. 

Jim,
I have to disagree over everybody keeping one’s taxes at a minimum. Such a view is one that puts self first over the needs of the community. Such a view follows the maximize one’s profits way of life. And we should note that when everybody is maximizing their own profits, the only ethic that remains is don’t get caught. And what most who live by the maximizing of one’s own profits maxim have difficulty with is understanding how when too many people live that way, our way of life becomes not just unsustainable, it becomes self-sabotaging. For eventually, the unpaid bills do catch up. Our problems with an uncontrolled national debt and a crumbling infrastructure along with diminishing safety nets illustrate that point. And my point is also proved by more than one historical example.

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

To R. Scott Clark's May 15 response defending churches  not paying taxes because their members are already taxed as individuals. This was part of the discussion on the blogpost about churches paying taxes in Heidelblog.

R. Scott Clark,
And the Church enjoys gov’t provided services, which is my point in the first place. And please realize that there is plenty profit in certain churches. And some of those services are required because people have joined together in the Church corporate body. So if the Church is not to be taxed, should church employees be taxed?

As for businesses, can business owners claim the same double taxation that Churches do. After all, don’t businesses contribute to the tax base by the taxes they withhold from their employees? And since businesses provide such tax revenue, some reason that these businesses have already paid their dues.

I understand the tax issue, the sensitivity over it, and how much of our money goes to taxes. At the same time, perhaps our feelings about taxes would be somewhat mitigated if we had more control over how our tax revenues are spent. Whether one is on the political right or the socialist left, note that liberals are left out of the mix here, there is a consensus, for different reasons, that our gov’t is out of control.

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

This Comment to David Robertson's blogpost calling on God  to bless America was finally published and thus is not blocked.

May 16

To David Robertson and his blogpost calling on God to bless America. This appeared in the Wee Flea blog

Being an American, an anti-capitalist leftist, and one who comes from the Reformed theological position, I have a different take on the points being made here. 

Point #1: God has blessed America.  But the same can be said of every nation. Every nation has come into existence because of God's allowance and blessing. But we should challenge something said in this point. We should question whether America has been a bastion of freedom and liberty. America is not just a nation, it also currently controls the largest empire. And whether America is that vast bastion of freedom  must be tested both within its national borders as well as within the borders of its empire. And when people of color still struggle to gain liberty and freedom here, and where those from the LGBT community can still be harassed and fired from their jobs within the US national border, we should look apprehensively at the freedoms afforded to all within the confines of our empire to see if we are that bastion of freedom and liberty we claim to be. And when measuring the freedoms and liberty within the confines of our empire, we should remember that liberty - equality = privilege. And the existence of privilege is no indicator of the presence of liberty and freedom.

Point #2: God Continues To Bless America. But the same can be said of every nation. And we have to ask whether His blessing is more apparent in the plethora of environments and teachers in a nation that has religious freedom than in a nation that still has believers despite varying degrees of persecution. In addition, we have to ask what kind of blessing it is when God's people seek to marginalize those in the LGBT community rather that to rely solely on evangelism to address sexually immoral behaviors. This attempt at marginalization is part of a larger effort made by Christians to exercise varying degrees of control over society.

Point #3: God Bless America because 'all is not well' here. Can fully agree with that but the diagnosis will forever be true of America and every nation. In addition, we should note why God should bless America. It can only be because He has chosen to show mercy to it for we, like all other nations, certainly do not deserve His blessing.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost repeating Denny Burk's contention that Jesus' reference to the least of these from the parable of the sheep and the goats. This appeared in the Acton blog.

When one reads the parable of the sheep and the goats, one has to question Burk's interpretation and application. For while Jesus talks about the sheep as those who have helped the most marginalized in society who have no way of repaying those showing the kindness, at least some of whom Burk regards as the least of these have been involved in the marginalization of others.

We might also want to see with Burk's interpretation whether we are called to only fellow believers who are marginalized. Is that what Jesus taught? Is that what the apostles taught.

A final point to be made is that Burk's interpretation of who the least of these are continues a Christian reaction to make the issue of how should society react to same-sex marriage and other issues involving those from the LGBT community solely about Christians and the travails they will face if full equality is extended to those in the LGBT community. This degree of self-absorption by my fellow Christians does not seem to  neatly fit into any of the parables Jesus taught.

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

To Elise Hilton and  her blogpost on big government, free markets and how the American dream can turn into a nightmare. This appeared in the Acton blog.

This reference to 'Big Government' seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. The same can be said of the reaction to 'free markets.' For regardless of the ethics practiced by big government, the size of the government determines its moral status. Big government, by virtue of its size, is bad.

Similarly, regardless of the behavior of free markets, these markets are deemed good because they are free. Such a view of markets does not consider the plight of all the stakeholders involved when these markets operate. One only needs to know that free markets are good, regardless of how they affect all of their stakeholders.

And here is the problem. Behavior is no longer the measure of the moral status of either markets or government. In addition, as amorphous a description that the word big provides for governments, such governments are spoken of as if they were a monolith. Reducing the value of government to one measurement, that is size, leads us to engage in all-or-nothing thinking patterns that, intellectually speaking, are not challenging. In fact, once we know the size of government, without knowing anything else, we know to condemn it. This is why the reaction to big government at the beginning of this comment is called a knee-jerk reaction. In addition, such a mentality takes for granted all of the government's work to provide an adequate infrastructure in which the free markets operate.

And as for the American dream, the more this dream is thing-oriented, then, according to Martin Luther King Jr, the longer we will have to tolerate racism, economic exploitation, and war. And that is our problem. We are a think-orieted society. And that is driven by the American Dream.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 1, 2015

This is a periodic disclaimer regarding the "unusual" grammar and spelling that will occur in these comments because these comments are edited less than the regular blogposts.

March 24

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on the "fundamentalism" of some of America's founding fathers. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I findi it historically inaccurate to use the Declaration of Independence as a backdrop for understanding The Constitution. Many conservatives would like to think that these two documents were like twins who were separated at birth, but their historical contexts were significantly different.

The Declaration of Independence was written as a initiator of the American Revolution. It was written to protest the rule of British elites and the "unfair" demands that some interpreted as tyranny. Of course, the British tyranny against which Jefferson and friends rebelled was not quite equal to the American tyranny cited by Frederick Douglas (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/douglassjuly4.html ), but still it was tyranny, I guess.

The Constitution was written with tyranny as a context only it was written to help strengthen the position of elites who were still practicing tyranny and were facing widespread dissent having also been confronted with rebellion. However, the elites in this case were Americans and the rebellion was Shays Rebellion, not the American Revolution. We should also note the switch in language between the two documents. Whereas the Declaration of Independence talked about 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' The Constitution was more concerned about protecting property ownership because, property was one of the concerns of both the dissent back then and Shays Rebellion. BTW, those whose trouble inspired the writing of The Constitution wanted to know why, when they sacrificed so much to gain independence from England, they were shafted when it came to owning property while American elites weren't.

At this point, referring back to Frederick Douglas' comments on America and the Declaration of Independence, people could be included as property back then. So defending the owning of property also included defending the ownership of people. We should also note that in defending property ownership, nothing was said about what enabled people to own and accumulate property. Take James Madison for example, he was born into wealth and what should be asked about his property is this: How much of his property, this includes wealth, morally belonged to the slaves who worked his land? See, the Constitution's protection of owning property would recognize his wealth as belonging to himself only. But since he obtained wealth from the work his slaves did, how much of that wealth morally belonged to them?

And though we don't have slaves today, that is the issue regarding the protection of property ownership especially business property--and business property includes the wealth generated by it. With all of the interdependencies that contribute to the property owned by a business, how much of that property morally belongs to the business. Note that the issue of moral ownership is raised because those businesses that are rich enough can buy laws that define who owns what property.

Certainly, this comment is not a conservative comment. Conservatives see themselves as defenders of a selective part of the past that relate to the present. And thus, part of Conservatism involves a celebration of oneself as natural result of celebrating that past. For those Conservatives who want to know the context of the writing of The Constitution, they should read Federalist #10, Henry Knox's Letter To George Washington, and the Constitutional debates. These documents, not the Declaration of Independence, provide a better backdrop and context for The Constitution.

---------

March 26

This particular comment is in a state of limbo meaning that it is awaiting being moderated. But since the moderating has taken a while, this comment will be posted until its status changes to being published.

To David Robertson and his blogpost claiming that to not believe in God is to become less human. This appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

Though logically speaking, I agree with the basic message of this article, history says something else--and that doesn't include the atrocities done in the name of Christ. Sometimes, all one has to do is to try to answer a question from a conservative theological position. For example, take one of John Frame's writings on the Jews taking back part of Palestine in the 1948 war:

This is the time-honored way of establishing sovereignty throughout human history. Modern observers should not be scandalized at the thought of such issues being settled by military force, nor should we refuse to recognize a regime simply because it was established through force.

See http://www.frame-poythress.org/who-owns-palestine/    for the quote above.

If John and his family had lived in Palestine then or the Occupied Territories now and seen the violence up close and personal, would he so dispassionately refer to war as being a 'time-honored way' of establishing borders? Yes, John has written other things about war and has said that it is 'a terrible thing.' and he has also said the following about war: ' agony of having to administer death or pain to others' and  the 'sheer terror of the situation' (see http://www.frame-poythress.org/response-to-what-was-it-like/). But if those are his real sentiments, where is his passion in wanting to avoid or even speaking against war?  It is with his trust in the civil magistrate (see http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/40093). As to who is more human about war, one should compare Frame's writings on it with that of Erasmus or Howard Zinn.

History tells us that the Church can act less than what is ideally considered to be human: the burning of witches and heretics in Geneva, Luther's writing against the Jews, the Puritan's persecution of Quakers along with their participation in the ethnic cleansing of America's indigenous people from the land, and slavery along with Jim Crow in America all of which was, according to some Christians, supported by the Bible. Of course, that doesn't include the American conservative churches' attempts to marginalize homosexuals in society.

The short of it is this, we in the Church need to do a better job of being human, as it is ideally thought of, if we want people to see the logic of our argument that to not believe in God is to lose some of our humanity.

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

March 29

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost disputing the claim that businesses that deny public services and goods for same-sex marriage for religious reasons are hiding behind the cross. This appeared on his Heidelblog

I have to agree with the LGBT advocate here. Yes, those of us who want the legal right to discriminate against SSM are hiding behind cross for the reasons that the LGBT are saying.

The problem is how we frame the issue. For example, when  Dr. Clark writes the following:

The debate about homosexual marriage has become increasingly heated because, in part, advocates of homosexual marriage have succeeded in persuading legislatures and the courts that marriage is defined not by nature but by affection and consent.1 Now Christians are being coerced to act against conscience informed by God’s moral law, by natural law, to support and/or endorse same-sex marriage (SSM) under threat of civil and financial penalties.

No one is asking us to support or endorse SSM let alone threatening us with civil and financial penalties. I am 100% sure that my belief that SSM is sin will never be punished by the law, either criminally or civilly, in this country. So the issue here is about neither support nor condoning the practice. The issue is about businesses using religion as a reason to withhold public services and goods from a group of people who are doing something legal. Please note that in our economic system, it is private business that provides public goods and services. And such goods and services are often provided to a person or a group without regard to support or the condoning of an activity. Thus to allow businesses to withhold those services sets up the potential for some to be totally deprived of those goods and services either at a particular time or for an extended period of time. The position held by some fellow Christians that businesses should have the right to withhold their services from those in LGBT community, from services provided to the general public is nothing more than a belief in a variation of the Jim Crow laws only the target has been changed. We should also ask when has the Christian community requested for businesses to be able to withhold public services and goods before.


And if you want to bring nature into this argument, realize that people have different understandings as to what is moral law and natural law. Should the gov't recognize the Christian view of natural law and disregard the views of all others?  Should Christians have a privileged position in society in determining its laws? See, unless you want to make the Romans 1 argument for natural where even unbelief could be seen as going against nature and thus should be punished by any gov't that is charge of upholding natural law.

We know that sex outside a monogamous, heterosexual marriage between two consenting adults is wrong. In fact, some remarriages between two consenting adults who are of different genders is wrong too.  And yet, where was the public made by Christians to have the right to refrain from providing public goods and services.

This post saddens me in two ways. The first is in the lack of self-awareness regarding the effects of how what it supports is discriminatory. And second, the blog's silence regarding national and societal sins or, in other words, the sins of those with wealth and power.

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

March 30

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of a person defending the right of florists and bakers to not provide their goods and services to same-sex weddings. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

This is the problem. Since businesses are the only institutions that provide many of our publicly needed goods and services, to allow one business to refuse to provide those goods and services to any legal group for a legal activity, gives permission to all businesses to do the same. Such creates a potential for that group to be deprived of publicly needed goods and services either at a critical time or for a prolonged period. That deprivation not only can cause distress for those group as they attempt to obtain the same stuff everyone else gets, it marginalizes them in society.

In addition, should we allow one business to discriminate against Blacks because there are a plethora of businesses that won't? If not, why should we allow some to treat homosexuals that way? Is it because we think that Blacks do not deserve to be discriminated against but homosexuals do? Shouldn't we be against the discrimination of all?

The reference to Mississippi is an unfortunate one because it minimizes the suffering that occurred then. It does so by making what happened there and then the minimal standard of the evil of discrimination. And the reference also is an attempt to sweep one's own acts of discrimination under the carpet of another's.

----------

To Johnny Mason's comment responding to my comment criticizing Indiana's new RFRA law. In his comment, Mason states that before the RFRA, businesses [in Indiana?] could refuse to serve gays without penalty. He also stated that no RFRA has been successfully used to defend people who practice discrimination against gays. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.

Johnny,
If there is ‘no law protecting gay people from discrimination,’ why is opposing this law a freak-out? In addition, I can’t say that there has been no outcry of this kind of discrimination in Indiana since I am not privy to enough news sources to confirm that.

And, again, it isn’t the not mentioning sexual orientation that is the issue, it is how the law can be used. And though it is too early to see how it will be used, that it can be used to discriminate is the issue.

One other point, suppose someone proves that providing publicly-needed goods and services to Blacks, Hispanics, or some other race caused the same religious distress to them that serving homosexuals do to others? And suppose they appealed to this law for relief and won. Would this law be discriminatory? What many of my fellow Christians don’t see is that businesses are the only outlet for many publicly needed goods and services. And thus owning one’s own business includes some outside claims on how that business will operate.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the need to keep local governments small. This appeared on the Acton blog.

By reducing the problems caused by government to size only, conservatives are not only oversimplifying the matter, they weaken democracy and open the door for private sector elite rule. This is where government is like love, size isn't the issue, fidelity is.

What good is a government that is too small to protect us from domestic or local predators? Is it any better than a government whose size allows it to be a predator? With either case, we have to deal with predators and we have to do that alone.

Certainly the size of government can be an issue. But a more important issue is the fidelity of our government. How faithful is the government in representing the welfare of all of the people? Generally speaking, it will be as faithful as citizens are participants in democracy. The more we participate in terms of educating ourselves about the issues and events, voting according to conviction rather than convention, protesting, boycotting, and publishing the actions of our government, the better chance that our government will be forced to be faithful.

But if we are too busy with our own lives and making our fortune in the world to adequately participate in government, then government will look to cheat with another lover.

The question here is this: Are we willing to spend less time on careers and pursuits of pleasure to pay the attention needed to keep government faithful?

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

To Bruce Edward Walker and his blogpost claiming that using fossil fuels provide the hope against world poverty. This appeared in the Acton blog.

This blogpost proves that the devil isn't always in the details, it is sometimes in being vague. For example, what has caused the drop in the 'six major air pollutants'? It is government for one thing. The Clean Air Act has caused companies to invest in the needed technology that is reducing air pollution.

But we should also note that CO2 was not included in the list of six major air pollutants. And it is the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is still the issue especially when other nations, such as China, are increasing the amount of CO2 they are releasing. Since 1980--didn't find the figures from 1970--the emission of CO2, despite its decline starting in around 2007, is still 14% higher than it was in 1980. And combined with the increase in CO2 from other nations that want to expand economically, that rise is still a problem. In addition, the start of the decline in CO2 emissions is around the same time when a drop in miles traveled here began. This supports the work of people like Naomi Klein who states that if we want to limit the effects of the damage we have caused to the environment, we will have to consume less. See http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html. BTW, have we noticed that water pollution was not mentioned while claiming that our environment is cleaner? Do we not realize that a significant amount of  CO2 that is released into the atmosphere settles in the ocean?

Finally, referencing China here is problematic for what this post is promoting. That is because in China, there are massive problems with air pollution in their major cities. And that air pollution does not just stay there. Through the use of weather, China is exporting one-fifth of its air pollution to other countries in the world (see http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/20/science/la-sci-sn-china-exports-air-pollution-united-states-20140120 ). So while what's done in Vegas, stays in Vegas; the same cannot be said in China.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 25, 2015

March 17

To David Robertson and his blogpost objecting to Edinburgh being called a not-Christian city. This appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

To me, calling a place a Christian place does not refer to the number of Christians there or their activity level. Rather, calling a place a Christian place means that Christians have a privileged position in that place to determine that place's laws and mores. 

Our challenge as Christians is how to reach out to the people where we live in order to both share the Gospel and help those in need without seeking a privileged position there. The desire for a privileged position comes from the desire to be in control. And our history of being in control over places has now caused us to see the pendulum swing in the other direction.

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

March 20

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost criticizing the PCUSA on its decision to  accept same-sex marriage in the churches of its denomination. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

I think that there are two tragedies here. The first one is definitely the failure of the PCUSA to distinguish between what should be acceptable in the Church and what should be acceptable in society. The denomination has a very valid concern for those who are marginalized (a.k.a., victims in Heidelblog-speak). That concern was also shown in the most recent decision regarding Israel. But that concern has trumped their commitment to the Scriptures. I have a friend who from the denomination who, unfortunately, thinks that the denomination is offering the love of Jesus by regarding homosexuality as being acceptable before God. The PCUSA is right to be concerned with how homosexuals have been marginalized in society and it is right for it to stand against that marginalization. But the Scriptures are clear on this matter and one must practice an olympic level of exegetical-gymnastics to read the Scriptures in any other way.

The other tragedy is the switch from using the conservative-liberal model in understanding the Church to the confessional-nonconfessional model. Why? It is not because of the adequacy of the conservative-liberal model of thought, this model of thought has many faults. It is because, as important as the confessions are, the confessional-nonconfessional model makes, in the hearts of many conservatives, the confessions operate like the traditions of the pharisees in Jesus' day. For we start regarding the confessions in the same way as those pharisees regarded their traditions as they used them to replace God's Word in their thinking. 

Yes, the confessions are important and they can be a useful guide. But dividing churches using the confessional-nonconfessional, especially when it comes to what the confessions say about the 2nd table of the law, puts those confessions on a dangerously high pedestal and forgets the cultural influences that were a part of the writing of those confessions. 

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

March 21

To Joe Carter and his blogpost predicting significant unemployment from Seattle's new $15/hr minimum wage. This appeared in the Acton blog

What is not mentioned here is that with the current wage situation, public funds are being used to subsidize corporate payrolls for many chains and that also involves chains not in the restaurant business. 

The problem with the conservative approach is that it never questions the system. And if Carter is right about there being too many negative side effects of the $15/hr minimum wage, then the choice we have is between public funds being used to subsidize corporate payrolls because of the poverty wages vs livable wage and fewer jobs. How is it that we are not questioning the system that limits our options to these two options?

Also, time will tell how many negative side effects there will be to the $15/hr wage. But regardless of those effects, we can't afford to be silent on what many are  now experiencing. To be silent while reporting on the negative effects of the new minimum wage indicates a conflict of interests.

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

To Elise Hilton and her article that attacks socialism by calling it fascism. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The trouble with this post is that it tells 2 stories from only 1 perspective. Both the description of socialism and the relabeling of it as fascism  along with the religious citations supporting and absolutized notion of property rights is stated from the conservative perspective. And the story is fuzzy because it is neither historically nor ideologically accurate. 

Historically speaking, the fascists were enemies of socialism. In addition, the fascists were hypernationalists. Don't believe me? Check the WWII record. Spain, Italy and Germany were fascist nations. And despite claims to the opposite, the so-called socialism of Germany and Italy had as a main driving force industrialists (a.k.a., capitalists), not workers which is the hallmark of socialism. The nationalism and the military spending was very good for businesses.  And they, along with Franco, opposed the left and socialism. Hitler supported Franco against Spain's Leftists. Hitler opposed the Soviet Union--even though Leninism-Stalinism was not really socialism. Both of those Soviet regimes were autocratic tyrannies. Unlike Nazi Germany, their governmental concerns was not driven by industrialists. In fact, Russia's capitalists, who favored the Tsars and kept their policies after the 1917 February overthrow of the Tsar, were defeated by Lenin. Then go ahead and read Mussolini and look at who supported his running of the government.

The topic brought up here is often obscured by rhetoric that absolutizes property rights and this is often done in ways that drown out concerns for workers' and others' rights. And what goes unsaid here is that the maintaining of property rights and the accumulation of wealth is due to a varying number of interdependencies including the essential contributions made by workers. And covered by obscurity and inaccuracies here is the fact that the Left, by definition, revolves around workers' rights and workers' control of manufacturing.  And those rights and control were not even seen in "Leftist" nations like the Soviet Union and Red China let alone the fascist nations like WWII Germany, Spain under Franco, and Italy under Mussolini. Whereas a legitimate Leftist government in Spain was defeated by Franco during the Spanish Civil War and in the name of nationalism--here, we should note that strong nationalism is a common trait among fascist nations while the international is a trait of socialist nations--with the help of Nazi Germany.

See, property rights, property rights, property rights is the battle cry for the capitalists and the business elites. And no challenges are allowed to be made without the accusation that all challenges come from "fascism."  The actual  battle here pits Capitalism's rule of wealth vs Government's rule of power vs the Left's democracy--rule of the people. That is what the stories of both World Wars tell us, and that is what is being played out today.


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

March 24

To Joe Carter and his blogpost about redistribution and how it is losing support among some of its beneficiaries. This appeared in the Acton blog.


The problem with this post is that because of its limited view of redistribution, it makes a false state, pertaining to our elected officials that is. Redistribution, according to conservatives can only flow in one direction and that direction is toward those who have less. 

But isn't there also a redistribution of wealth upwards? Think of the group that has benefited the most from the financial recovery from our economic collapse in 2008. It is the wealthy. And think about the flow of money that occurs when corporations use gov't assistance programs to subsidize their payrolls. And think about the flow of money which occurs when lobbyists write bills and obtain gov't contracts that richly reward their corporate employers. Most of our elected officials from both major political parties and wealthy recipients of the upward redistribution have no problem with feeling richer and more dependent on government with this upward redistribution. 

Why is it that what is redistributed to the poor is dumped on here, but what is redistributed to the rich goes unmentioned? Past revolutions suggest that this selective process of describing redistribution is not in our best interests. That is especially true for those who have any religious associations.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 18, 2015

March 10

To R. Scott Clark's response to my comment comparing his list of references for settled science vs the list of scientists who are convinced that climate change is caused by human activity. This appeared in the Heidelblog's article on Settled Science

Dr Clark,
The problem with your answer to BD is that it is first based on a false assumption and second, it filters out the details. 

Now to clear things up, BD was actually me who was visiting my daughter and didn't realize her logged-in status on her blog would be recorded as the sender of the message. For that I apologize. It was inadvertent. 

The false assumption was that you thought that the 97% was based on a NASA article. Actually, it is based on  a National Academy of Sciences article. The link is 

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

Please be specific in detailing your scientific objections to the study's methodology--that is if you so choose to, I understand if you choose not to.

Second, there was no systematic documentation for giving a specific figure by the NASA article. However, by simply saying it was unscientific, you waved your hands at the number of scientific  organizations that do recognize climate change as being caused by human activity. 

Now again, compare those organizations with the single reference you gave in the 1970s about the coming ice age being settled science and tell me how the two different sets of references are comparable. Note that the list of scientific organizations that are convinced by the evidence is also not the same as any list of media outlets that report a story. The NASA link is below:

    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Finally, what conservatives are not upfront about are the personal issues involved in acknowledging the possible reality of climate change. The quote comes from Naomi Klein.

it is always easier to deny reality than to allow our worldview to be shattered

We should note that the above objection to acknowledging the possible reality of climate change is often the same objection made by many who reject the truth of God's Word.

Finally, I am not clear on your view of climate change. Do you deny that we are experiencing human activity caused climate change or are you saying that it is possible but that the jury should still be out? 

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

Not sure when this happened, but the status of the comment below has been changed from awaiting moderation to published

To David Robertson and his blogpost on a secular organization's argument against Christianity. It has to do with alleged sexual misconduct of a Christian. This blogpost appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

We have to realize that as cultural values drift further and further from Christian values, the greater the change which is called for by the preaching of the Gospel. And the greater the change called for, the stronger the resistance will be. Therefore, examples of hypocrisy will have their significance magnified. 

Sex is not the only issue which opponents of Christianity are blaming the Church for. The Church has also been portrayed as an oppressor of man's creativity and freedom. And one of the ways the Church has done this is through doctrine.

We should also note the Church's past history at playing the hypocrite. Think of how much scorn the Church earned for itself prior to the French and Russian Revolutions by aligning itself with wealth and power.

Yes, we preach a stricter code of sexual ethics to the world and some, perhaps with some merit, will link how we have taught sexual ethics with the sexual misconduct by some of our own. And since we are calling for bigger and bigger changes in people's lives as cultural values continue on their present course, we should expect the kind of reaction described above.

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

March 14

To Russell Moore and his blogpost on the changing status of Christianity in America and how we can react. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

There are some good observations made in this article especially in the section titled, 'Path Forward.' But there is something missing as well. For not only must we consider how to advance the Kingdom of God in America, we must also decide on how we will share society with others. We must determine how we will share society with others because society has joined us with others. Thus, choosing how to share society is a responsibility.

In the past, Christians sought and maintained a privileged position in society in that we had the biggest voice in determining its laws and mores. But we should note, lest the less than honest comparison between Muskogee and Woodstock gives us a false sense of superiority, who was marginalized when Christianity was the dominant force in society. Minorities were not just marginalized, they were persecuted. Homosexuals have shared their own version of that marginalization and persecution as well. Those belonging to other political ideologies, such as socialists, were marginalized and sometimes persecuted. The list could go on.

The fact that we call the recent turn in events a culture war shows how oblivious we have been of our privileged position. For the current culture war more resembles the conflict portrayed in the first Star Wars movie. We had a rebellion against an empire where, in America, the empire stood for Christianity and its values.

There is a way to end the current culture wars while optimizing our ability to advance the Kingdom of God. That way is to share society as equals. And in sharing society as equals, we commit ourselves to including those groups whom we have, in the past, either worked to marginalize or neglected their marginalized status. Working to share society as equals rather than as a chosen few will reduce the number of stumbling blocks we set before those to whom we wish to preach.

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


March 17

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost on Christian persecution and our loss of liberties. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The trouble with this post obviously is not the recognition that some other Christians have it worse than American Christians or that we should try to better the plight of both Christians in Islamic countries and those here. The trouble is that, besides not being specific regarding the troubles Christians have here, there is no context provided for why Christians here are "losing" liberties here. Certainly some have lost jobs because of their views and citing those actions are legitimate citing of lost liberties by a few number of particular Christians. 

Other than that, we really haven't lost any liberties; but we are seeing a pendulum swing. That pendulum swing is returning from a period where Christians had a privileged place in society. And while we had that privileged place, there were those who suffered marginalization. For many, especially America's Indigenous people and Blacks, we ignored their suffering and disenfranchisement, or some of us even pushed for, their discrimination. For homosexuals, we continue to push for both their marginalization and our right to estrange them. Much of that revolves around our opposition to same-sex marriage and, in some states, our reactionary attempts to pass Jim Crow like legislation against them. In fact, homosexuals are still subject to marginalization through legally protected harassment and job firings in some states.

Now the pendulum is slowly starting to swing the other way and we feel "persecution." Certainly our trials here are not comparable to the persecution Christians in other areas of the world are subject to. But neither is our persecution comparable to what we've put, and still do, homosexuals through. Which makes us think whether the current persecution of Christians in Islamic countries, some of which consists of horrific atrocities, are a sinful reaction to what Christians there have done. We should note that for protection payment, some, not all, Christians in the Middle East have supported tyrannical regimes. Two nations where this has occurred are Syria and Egypt. All of which points to our need to be able to step back from our proclivity for myopia to get a wider perspective.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost citing Acton colleague Samuel Gregg's assertion that our understanding of God shapes us and society. This occurred in the Acton blog.

The trouble here is that we often measure civilization by how we treat those in our own group while neglecting to mention how we treat those from other groups. Thus de Tocqueville was so impressed with how civilized British Society was that he neglected to consider how the Brits treated those in their colonies. 

So when we examine the main premise, what does the history and present of our nation's treatment of nonWhites, both here and abroad, say about our understanding of God?