The Problem With Definitions

 It must seem like a flashback to the Bill Clinton days when when Biden's SCOTUS nominee balked on answering a question about whether she could define what a woman is. In responding to the question during her Senate confirmation hearing, the Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson stated that she could not answer the question because she is not a biologist. And so Jackson's balking at answering the question brought back memories of Bill Clinton while he was being asked about whether he had sex with an intern. In responding, we heard about what is the definition of the word 'is' and sex.

Denny Burk (click here for a very brief bio), a religiously conservative Christian college professor, minister, and commentator on the world around us, tries to discredit the Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson from being confirmed as a judge on the Supreme Court in part because of her answer to the above question, Jackson declined to answer. and so Burk writes an article on his blog about how he thinks that, despite her refusal to answer the question, she really knows what a woman is (click here). In the end, Burk attributes Jackson's reluctance to define what a woman is to our current culture's current embracing of 'expressive individualism'--a concept discussed by Dr Carl Trueman, a fellow religiously conservative Christian. If my initial impression of what Trueman meant by the term is correct, expressive individualism refers to such a stress on individualism  that what we think of ourselves as individuals trumps any reality taught to us from the objective world or the past.

But there is a certain opportunism in Burk's complaint. That is because while the dialogue in the hearing reproduced by Burk asks Jackson about what is a woman within a specific context, Burk doesn't include that context when discussing her answer. For the context of the question asked of Jackson was a comment made by Ginsburg in a certain setting. 

And so Jackson refused to answer the question about what is a woman in the context of that comment. Later on, Jackson clearly states in the hearing that she knows that she is a woman as well as some others So Burk's suspicion about what Jackson's definition of a woman was answered before he raised it. But such is life in a world where opportunism reigns.

But beyond that verbal scuffle in the Senate hearing about what is a woman, there is a cultural change in context that have religiously conservative Christians, especially the intellectual ones, up in arms while singing the Things Ain't What They Use To Be blues. That cultural change is due to an effort to stop society from continuing to marginalize homosexuals and transgendered people. For the social injustices suffered by the LGBT community has been for centuries in this nation and even longer in Western Civilization. 

And what we should note is that many attempts to undo long standing social injustices often employ a similar logic on which those injustices are based. That logic is based on the desire not just to undo past and current injustices, but to prevent any future injustices. And thus the logic employed is similar to that employed in phobias where there is either an inability or unwillingness to distinguish that which only has a coincidentally association with one's fears from that which actually contributed to those fears. Here we should note that many social injustices are based on bigotry where there is an unwillingness or inability to make distinctions.

And so while many from the LGBT community insist that, to be properly respected, one's gender identity must be considered one's biological sex and always regarded that way in society, many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians insist that biological sex must be the overriding, if not the only, factor that almost every person must use in determining what gender they identify as. The error of both groups is, as they provide mirror images of each other, that they conflate one's biological sex with one's gender identity. And the problem there is that while biological sex deals with the physical world, gender identity deals with the social-psychological world. . 

Thus there is an obvious need by both many in the LGBT community as well as many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians to return to the drawing board. That is because, on the LGBT side, gender identity cannot redefine what is biological. And thus to adequately describe the place in which many who are or who are seeking to be transgendered find themselves is that there are more than just the two categories in biological sex. For many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians, what they need to realize that gender identity is not solely determined by the equipment one is born with and thus we can't force the reality we experience or expect on them. Here we should note that gender identity issues have a history that is both outside of and precedes Western Civilization's current experiment with expressive individualism which Burk mentions as a contributing factor to our problems with gender identity.

Burk needs to be more careful in commenting on the views of others with whom he sharply disagrees. In addition, he needs to study the topic of gender identity as it has existed before the current time and in other societies than his own.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 24, 2016

Aug 17

To Bruce Ashford and his blogpost review of Os Guinness’s new book on how Modernity provides the biggest threat to Christianity and Western Civilization. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

I have respect for Guinness but also feel free to disagree with him. I find that the greatest threat to Christianity is not modernity, in which he includes both modernism and post modernism, itself, it is how we interact with it. For in interacting with modernity, we need to distinguish that from which we can learn from that which we must reject. To deny that we have stuff to learn from Modernity puts us Christians at risk for having the arrogance Martin Luther King Jr. saw in the West during the Vietnam War (see  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm  ):

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

We should remember or learn how Christians treated each other before Modernity. We must know about how Christians persecuted each other, even to the point of death, and how they treated Jews. In addition, Christians weren't all that Christian toward the indigenous people they discovered when enlarging their Western empires. Even with the beginning of our own nation, many Christians persecuted each other and some defended slavery and/or owned slaves as well as participated in the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans. Western Christianity was basically racist and gives evidence of still being that way today. And Modernity has tempered that and has thus has induced some amnesia as evidenced by how we look at the sectarian violence between Muslims today.

Yes, we need to be alert to how Modernity can cause us to compromise our faith. At the same time, we must understand how Modernity has contributed to the Church in tempering the traits that we so easily condemn in others.

Now if I was Guinness, I wouldn't label Modernity as being the biggest threat to Christianity. That is because of the largest threats Christianity faced before Modernity which still exist today. Those threats are the love of wealth and tribalism. Both of these threats cause us Christians to compromise the faith regardless of the time period in which we live. Both the love of wealth and tribalism provide the biggest threat to Christianity because both so strongly challenge our priorities. And by challenging our priorities, they can cause us either to self-destruct or give into external pressure such as the pressures brought to us by Modernity. His apparent concern for both Christianity and Western Civilization indicates that what Guinness seems to be most leery of are changes in the status quo which are not always as much a threat to Christianity as they are to Western Civilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aug 18

To Denny Burk and his blogpost citing another article on how our children could be taken away from us over their personal transgender issues. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.

I think that the quoted paragraph is an overreaction. There is nothing that indicates the taking away of children over transgender issues. Yes, the medical community supports it, you find examples of that support on the Mayo Clinic website. But such provides and indicator for the public's reaction to those who feel not at home in their gender.

Let's face it, the pendulum has swung so hard in favor of those who hold to biblical values and views of gender that all we are seeing now is a reversal in the swing of that pendulum. And if we are anticipating drastic outcomes from that change in direction, perhaps that is an indicator that we pushed the pendulum too hard and far in our preferred direction.

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

Aug 20

To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost on how America is committing suicide. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There are a number of points that are wrong with Buchanan's article. To start off with, he gives incomplete tax information. Though the statistics he cites are correct, he neglects to provide data on the income for the groups he is comparing. According to the same table of information he uses to quote the tax burden being paid by the top 1% vs the bottom 50%, the income gap is more telling of the story here. An example can be found here in comparing the adjusted gross income per return for the two groups while noting that the number of returns used do not include dependent filers. The average adjusted gross income for those in the bottom 50% for 2013  was $15,013 while the average adjusted gross income for those in the top 1% is $1,243,406. We should also note that while there were approximately 1.4 million returns from those from the 1% bracket, there were approximately 69.2 million returns for the bottom 50%. Here we should note that 19% of the adjusted gross income went to that approximate 1.4 million people while only around 11% of the adjusted gross income went to the bottom 50%, or approximately 6.92 million, of returns (see http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update for source).

But what isn't mentioned at all by Mr Buchanan was the amount of federal assistance or money spent on polices  that benefited the corporations owned by the top 1%. Yes, Mr. Buchanan has a legitimate concern over the growing Federal debt; we should all share his concern. But what are the main causes for this debt? The statistics cited by Mr. Buchanan does not paint an adequate picture of the problem.

Having discussed that, Mr. Buchanan's expressed concern for the survival of the purity of Western Civilization while seeming to speak negatively of diversity and equality does not paint a flattering picture of his view. His view is one that seems to relish a past that lacked self-awareness. Yes, there is a conflict between a group of Trump supporters who share Mr. Buchanan's concern for the survival of the purity of Western Civilization and the rest of the world. Trump's supporters seem to share at least some of Buchanan's picture that past Civilization, a picture which seems to have been taken from the past and has become a focal point of their identity. But having that as the center of their identity puts them at conflict with changes that come from people trying to escape horrendous situations in their home countries. In other words, Trump's supporters are experiencing a problem that has occurred before. Here, we should speculate on how Buchanan would portray America's past if he was a Native American.

We should also note that like Buchanan's treasured past, his present lacks self-awareness as well. All one needs to do to verify this is to  look at the statistics on nations from which the most illegal immigrants come. With each nation, significant ties to the US can be found. from coups to trade agreements.

Mr. Buchanan's final words are about the eventual death of democracy in every nation. According to what he quotes from john Adams, this death is self-inflicted. Perhaps we could console Mr. Buchanan by telling him that democracy is not alone in terms of dying; all Empires eventually collapse as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aug 23

To Tim Keller, Russell Moore, and Kevin DeYoung and their blogpost discussion on how to speak to our culture about sex. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Though Keller's statements on attacking narratives has significant merit and seems to be the best approach, all of it bears a similarity to Mitt Romney's speeches against Donald Trump in trying to reach those rebelling against an established order by supporting Trump. Though what Romney said about Trump was true, he we ineffectual because he didn't acknowledge the failures of his own group as he is a member of the establishment.

Likewise, though much of what was said, in particular what Keller said has merit, there is no acknowledgement  of the attempts by many Christians to do more than just speak about sex; we've tried to control how others have acted sexually and lived with partners. Of course some controls are necessary. But when saying that, many of us have, with animosity, tried to associate those in the LGBT community with those provide real threats to the community.

In speaking to people about sex, I think we Christians must acknowledge our failures in terms of how we have tried to control others and then we can apply what was said in the video. 



 

Comments Which Conservative Block From Their Blogs For July 27, 2016

July 20

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost calling for an end to the alliance between the Presbyterian and Reformed denominations and the Republican Party especially when it comes to praying at the convention. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I agree with much of what is written here, but I have a question. Should we also do away with the alliance between religiously conservative Christianity, including those who are Reformed, and conservative political ideology? That idea certainly doesn't prohibit Reformed Christians from holding to politically conservative ideas. But the idea does say that Reformed Christians can also hold to non conservative ideas and ideologies as well.

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

July 23

To Denny Burk and his blogpost on whether Trump is on the side of social conservatives. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.

I think what is worse than believing that Trump is Christian is to believe that Social Conservatism is Christian. Yes, it has Christian elements such as opposing abortion.  But it is also two-faced in that it portrays itself as being for religious liberty while opposing same-sex marriage and promoting school prayer.

In addition, it takes an unbalanced view on the 2nd Amendment and its interpretation of that amendment decontextualizes the right to bear arms. The emphasis on strong national defense ignores America's imperialism and becomes very presumptive of America's role in the world.

In addition, in the name of free markets, social conservatism has advocated for the cutting of social responsibilities for businesses.

What could be observed here is that for most issues, social conservatism aligns itself with business interests whether it is with the interests of weapons manufacturers and the military industrial complex to the reduction of welfare obligations and the denial of business's fault in the lack of economic opportunities available for certain people.

Yes, I understand why some religiously conservative Christians have bought into social conservatism. But what is both troubling and puzzling is the insistence by some that social conservatism is Christian and that those ideologies and groups to the left are anti-Christian.




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

July 25

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that contains a video presentation on economics by South Korean Economist Ha-joon Chang. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The video here is a welcomed change from the usual presentations on economics. That the presenter stated we should look valid points in the nine major economic theories puts Economics into the science category in which it belongs. Economics is, after all, a behavioral science. And the problem some people have when listening to any other theory but their own is that they often speak and act as if economics is a natural science. And even in natural science, we have had changing approaches to studying the physical world.  In addition, the presenter talked about topics that some schools of economics includes and others do not such as personal identity, happiness, and democracy. We could add environmental impact as a topic that should be included in the study of economics but is most often not.

Finally, that this person invites people to form their own economic views and be willing to challenge the experts is partially taught by Marx with his proletariat dictatorship. Only because Marx viewed the proletariat as having a monopoly on truth and values while seeing the bourgeoisie having a monopoly on selfishness and sin, he was only partially correct. Neither the proletariat nor the bourgeoisie have a monopoly on either virtue or vice.

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

To Kyle Hanby and his blogpost that describes protectionism as being harmful. This appeared on the Acton blog.

What this article seems to ignore is that the push for free trade on nations that are trying to develop their  economies or certain sectors of it is from nations that used protectionism to develop their own economies. Ha-Joon Chang, an economist whose video presentation on why anyone could have valid insights into economics which was the focal point of a Joe Carter blogpost on the Acton blog notes the following (see https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/162/27898.html ):

They argue that free trade is how all developed countries have become rich, and criticise the developing countries for refusing to adopt this successful formula for economic development.

This is far from the truth. When they were developing countries, those countries now developed followed few of the policies they now recommend to others, and especially free trade. And nowhere is this discrepancy between historical reality and myth greater than in Britain and the United States, the two countries supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through free markets and free trade.

He then goes on to list and describe areas in which both the Great Britain and the US used protectionism to build their economies. He mentions how Britain used protectionism to develop its wool manufacturing, for example, and also for corn. Other industries also benefited from protectionism. According to Chang, Britain exceeded its European neighbors in using protectionism. Likewise, he notes that the US employed one of the highest tariffs perhaps more than any other nation from 1830 to around 1945. In addition, the oceans themselves became natural tools of protectionism due to the cost of shipping. He mentions other parts of protectionism in the US which are quite interesting.

Today, the forcing of free trade on undeveloped nations by developing nations is really forced trade where fledgling industries and business from these nations are forced to compete with well established industries and businesses from developed nations. The result is that too many of the fledgling industries and businesses fail thus making nations with developing economies subservient to the demands of developed nations. But also, forcing free trade on developing nations robs the developing nations of the same mechanisms to develop used by many of today's established nations.

I'm afraid that the view of protectionism described above is that is both economically myopic and historically blind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 26

To Bruce Frohnen and his blogpost about how college is a place full of liberal indoctrination of students. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Having taught at state schools, my experiences do not match those of Frohnen. Conservatism was well represented on campus by the number of conservative faculty members. Free speech was respected provided that it was respectful. And though while I started my career as a political conservative and eventually turned out to be an actual political leftist, as opposed to a liberal, but with  conservative religious beliefs, I felt the scorn from both sides.

The conservative-non conservative faculty ratio was, in my teaching experience, highly affected by major in which a faculty member taught. Engineers and business teachers tend to be strongly conservative though there were some exceptions. The majors I taught in contained a mixed bag of conservatives and non conservatives.

Considering that Frohnen seems to be offended by the presence of liberals and leftists, whom he seems unable to distinguish, his portrayal of Zinn's claim of bias misses the point of the claim. The point of his claim is that in history, one cannot escape being biased and it does come out in the selection of material one thinks is important. Thus, Zinn's admission is one of occupational honesty rather than deliberateness and prejudice.

But the biggest objection to college by my former colleagues has not been touched on in this article. Our main objection is that college has merely become just another business who mission is to create more cogs for the system. Why college is a business bothered us is because students became customers and consumers rather than people who were in search of an education. And as customers and consumers, they also became merely numbers for the sake of the profitability of the school. And thus lower admission standards were needed to garner enough customers and thus we had too many kids who were unprepared for college in all sorts of ways and who blamed faculty for their own lack of preparation. Such is the biggest problem the schools I taught in were displaying.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost video where John Norberg claims that when we buy goods from China, we are feeding ourselves because much of that money goes to workers who contributed to those good here. This appeared in the Acton blog.

No, contrary to the claims made in the video, trade with nations like China and Mexico where more money leave the nation than comes in is not feeding us. And no, it is not necessarily the nations with which we have trade deficits which are killing us, it is the corporations and their investors that are killing us. For much of the money that goes into buying products overseas just doesn't go to  the workers, some of whom are working in sweatshop conditions in other nations, it goes to investors. And it is investors, especially the more wealthy ones, around whom our nation's economy is revolving. In addition, the primary labor force for many of the products we buy as a result of trade are not workers from the US.

So while the video answers Trump's concerns, it neglects to mention the concerns of those on the Left. But the speaker makes one valid point, the trade does feed us. For Reaganomics tells us that when we enrich the rich, they feed us. However, what is not mentioned is that they feed us table scraps of both food and freedom.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 23, 2016

March 16

To Scott Sauls and his blogpost about the nonpartisan politics of Jesus. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.


I want to pick at one statement made in the article:

We should feel “at home” with people who share our faith but not our politics even more than we do with people who share our politics but not our faith. If this isn’t our experience, then we may be rendering to Caesar what belongs to God.

The statement should be far more nuanced than it is. Why? It is because sometimes it is more than evident that one's political values contradict the Christian faith while, because of Common Grace, the political values of nonbelievers can be more in line with the Christian faith. Political values on war and militarism, economics and poverty, and Civil Rights should be highly influenced by the Scriptures for all Christians. That doesn't mean that they will agree on the analysis and implementation of problems. It does mean that Christians who too easily support wars, exploitive economic and political systems, and believe that people's rights in society depends on which groups they belong to are usually not letting the Scriptures adequately influence their political values.

One other thought. The title reminded me of when I first read Noam Chomsky. Why? It is because what I first observed about his writings is that all groups and nations should be judged by the same standard, or at least by the standards they judge others by. We could call this approach politics without borders.

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

March 18

To Daniel Mahoney and his blogpost that questions our commitment to Democracy when such can change the country’s commitment to traditional values. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There are several things to say here. First, the Founding Fathers are portrayed as a monolith and they weren't. Second, they put on a pedestal they do not deserve. It is clear from history and strongly indicated by the words of The Constitution itself that this document was written to preserve the status quo despite widespread dissent in troubling economic time and Shays Rebellion. In addition, many of the Founding Fathers were slaveowners who had an eye toward westward expansion despite what that meant to the Native Americans.

If we look at Tocqueville, it is clear that he had elements of racism in his writings as seen in what he wrote about Native Americans, Blacks, and the supremacy of British culture.He is often quoted as an authority whose words are not to be questioned. But for what reason?

Also, while conservatives point to losses in the "culture wars," what is really driving this nation asunder is its growing wealth and power disparity. Wealth disparity continues to increase as seen in the identity of those who benefited most from the economic recovery while some have reclassified the US as being an oligarchy rather than a democracy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ) because of the increasing power disparity that those with wealth have over the government in contrast to the power that can be exercised by the rest of us. We should note that growing wealth and power disparities prove that we are not suffering from any kind of extreme egalitarianism. We should also note that those who manage this oligarchy as well as most, if not all, others in the power structure of our nation were raised in far more traditional settings than what exists today.

So other than trying to ind an apologetic for supporting a Conservative Christian/Catholic ethnocracy in America, what is the purpose of this article? BTW, the term 'ethnocracy' comes from Israeli activist Jeff Halper. It is used to describe a nation where democratic processes are used by some ethos in the nation to gain a privileged ruling role over the rest of the people.

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

To Denny Burk and his blogpost encouraging people to never vote for Trump even if he wins the Republican nomination. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog

The reason why we are where we're at is because the Republican Party has used the abortion issue as a voting straight jacket for religiously conservative Christians. So now that there is a real potential for viable alternatives to the eventual Republican nominee, there are none to be found.

In addition, though everything written above about Trump is true, it misses the point. If you want to stop Trump in the primaries, you must make Trump supporters your main audience. And to do so one must focus less on ideology and more on the legitimate discontentment that is driving Trump's anti-establishment campaign. For unless holes can be made in the anti-establishment support he is receiving, there is a significant possibility that he will become the Republican nominee. 

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

To William Smith and his blogpost that supports the establishment in contrast to supporting either Cruz or Trump. This appeared in the Just A Curmudgeon website.

The problem with the above praise of the establishment is that it doesn't distinguish establishments that promote justice and help those in need from establishments that are tyrannical. The real problem that the Republican Party has right now it that its members are being asked to  choose between the truth about the establishment as told by a dangerous candidate and the same old, same old. BTW, I don't consider a candidate who has ties to Goldman Sachs and who will continue American Imperialism as anti-establishment. As for his relationships with other Republicans, we could easily say that Cruz is just socially impaired.

At some point, the Republican Party will have to offer acceptable anti-Establishment alternatives to the current anti-establishment candidate. That will include an admission that the Establishment has failed the people. In addition, conservatives will have acknowledge that the "culture wars" were nothing more than a diversion to distract us from the performance of the establishment.

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

To Rosaria Butterfield and her short video on what Christians don’t understand about those in the LGBT community. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

I think the following about the three points she made about LGBT folks.

1.  People are people: this is true. We should note that not only do those from the LGBT community face the same issues and perform the same tasks as we do, they have contributed to our lives as individuals and by their contributions to society. Thus we need to think about how we should rethink how we should share society with them. Should we share society as equals or as wanting to stand over them telling them what they can do. I, myself, prefer the first option.

In addition, people have multiple identities, not just one. Yes, the identity that Rosaria gives is the overarching identity for all of us, but that doesn't prohibit us from having other identities.

2.   When thinking about the sins of others, remember the parable of the two men praying. The result of remembering that parable is that we will understand how we stand in equal need for God's mercy and grace as our neighbor does regardless of our neighbor's sins.

3.   We should not only share our Christian worldview, we need to expend more energy to listen to the worldviews of others. 

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

March 21

To Bruce Frohnen and his blogpost criticizing the notion that our nation is responsible for the terrorist attacks others have visited on us. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

One of the problems with the article above is the title. The problem is in the word 'all.' Would the title be true and thus the article be revised if we substituted the word 'partly' for the word 'all'? After all, sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of children and a brutal occupation that has decimated a people are no small matters and understandably can cause anger in those who have ties to the victims.

The second problem is consistency. If we don't want our nation to accept any blame for the terrorist attacks  on because of our policies, then do we allow others to blame us only for our interventions in other countries? For who is to blame for the first 9-11 attack, that is the military coup that overthrew a democratically elected leader of Chile only to replace him with a military tyrant. That occurred on 9-11-73. Of course there are other interventions to question as well like the coups in Iran ('53) and Guatemala ('54) that saw the replacing of democratically elected leaders with tyrants. Or what about the rule of the military junta in Greece in 1967? Or what about our war in Vietnam? Who is to blame for that if we put all of the blame for the 9-11-2001 attacks on the terrorists?

Finally, we should note that the negation or opposite of moral equivalence is moral relativity. That is because the rejection of moral equivalence is to give oneself permission to do unto others what one condemns others for doing to oneself.

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

To Marc Vander Maas and his blogpost consisting of an interview with Joe Carter who alleged that Donald Trump was a ‘folk Marxist.’  This appeared in the Acton blog.

It seems to me that Carter is as confused on Trump as he is on Marxism. As a result, Marxism, or 'folk Marxism,' becomes a way of making Marxism a pejorative and by associating that with Trump, he hopes to kill two birds with one stone. In addition, he also hopes to discredit the notion that the upper class ever tries to suprress the lower class.

Is Trump tapping into class warfare sentiments? Absolutely not. For if he did, he couldn't run as a Republican candidate. Rather, Trump is tapping into big government resentment and his challenge all along has been that of blaming gov't for our woes today. Se he promises his supporters that he is going to put in competent people in the gov't; he is not promising to tear down the upper class. In fact, he alleges that an incompetent government has caused businesses to hurt the lower classes in order to survive the real world. Since Trump is targeting gov't with his critiques, he is not targeting the private sector elites, known as the 'bourgeoisie'  Thus, in Marxist circles, he couldn't be adequately accused of being a Marxist in any sense of the term.

Second, Marxists not only want to bring down the current system, they have replacements in mind. Before Lenin hijacked the Russian Revolution, Socialists wanted either the Russian Constituent Assembly or they wanted the soviets to take the place of the Provisional government--the government that replaced the Tsar in the February, 1917 Revolution. In the Paris Commune and the Spanish Revolution, councils of workers and soldiers replaced their respective governments. What Marxists of all shades want is not just to tear down the system, they want to replace the current system with a stronger worker presence in both the leadership of businesses as well as the government. While the tired Conservative mantra of equating big government with socialism is manipulatively repeated, the Marxist notion is that it isn't the size of the government that is the issue, it is the identity of those running the government that is the issue. And for Marxists, the identity of those in charge of the government must be workers rather than the owners.

Third, one has to wonder if in his fast and loose use of labels, Carter is trying to defend the class rule of the private sector elites by trying to deny it exists. One indicator that we have class rule can be seen in the volatility of working and even middle class jobs and the stagnation of wages. The volatility of jobs is due both to the offshoring of work to nations some of which allow the use of sweatshop, trafficked, or virtual slave labor and the pace of the increase in the use of technology to replace workers. In fact, we have instances of trafficked and slave labor existing here in America such as in the agriculture sector where some of the people who harvest our crops. We also have sweatshop labor in textile industry in this nation. 

Another indicator that we have a class struggle/war going on has to do with the state of our democracy. According to one study, we no longer have a democracy since the opinions of the people have little to no effect on decisions and policies made by our government (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ). Rather, the only opinions that matter to our elected officials according to this study are the opinions of the upper class.

So it would be enlightening to see the research Carter conducted and the sources he drew on for the interview he gave.

Comments Which Conservative Block From Their Blogs For March 16, 2016

March 2

To Joe Carter and his blogpost whether Christians should vote when we have factions in our political system. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

A few comments here. The Constitution allows for geographical factions to be represented in government. But since the vocation of a very large majority of our representatives are either public servants (politicians with no other skills), lawyers, or business people the vast majority of us go underrepresented or even unrepresented in government when we consider our vocational interests. Such a representation would have occurred in the USSR if Lenin had not dismantled the soviets because his lust for power and his paranoia.  Soviets were workers' councils where the members are voted into the position by their peers and they used democratic processes to make decisions.

Second, yes the President is in charge of the military so that the gov't can provide the nation with security.  But the President can cause the nation to be at risk in other ways than to not employ the military for our defense. When the President employs the military to intervene in other nations and control or even remove other governments, the President has placed us at risk for retaliation. That retaliation  came true on 9-11. And the atrocities of 9-11 were a response for past American atrocities or our enabling of atrocities by others.

Finally, if we are going to make democracy work, we have to be able to escape many of the factions that separate us from others who are different. Otherwise, our factionalism becomes nothing more than tribalism and we, in various situations, adopt a gang warfare mentality that says what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom.


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

To Don Carson and his blogpost on whether we should call for justice. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Anyone who has a sufficient understanding of their sins and their place before God, modifies how they call for justice. It is not necessary for such people to want vindication. In fact, such peope who call for justice are concerned with two things: the cessation of injustice and reconciliation. 

Wanting reconciliation instead of vindication allows us to be more consistent in our call for justice. And our call for justice is important for two reasons. First the obtaining of justice ends the unrighteous suffering of ourselves and others. Second, to call for justice is not just to try to help the victim, it is an effort to call the victimizers to repentance.

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

March 5

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost vide on the job of government but is really about exalting the conservative view of American Exceptionalism. This appeared in Heidelblog

What I've noticed about American Conservatives is that there an obsession and compulsion to praise themselves. This is most evident here in the praising of The Constitution and its writers. And writers are often described mythologially as a monolith even though they were neither mythical nor a monolith. And surprisingly enough, such an approach to The Constitution and its writers is an authoritarian approach.  It's authoritarian in that only those who hold to the Conservative mythological view of our founders and The Constitution are counted as valid interpreters of The Constitution while others can be ignored, at the least, or even counted as a saboteur and enemy of the state. So the exceptionalism that is being preached here is not just American Exceptionalism, it is the exceptionalism of conservatism.

We should note what prompted the writing of The Constitution: widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion. Don't believe me? All one has to do to perhaps see my point is to  list all of the references to the militia that are in The Constitution and then add the 2nd Amendment. For the 2nd Amendment couches the right to bear arms in the context of the need for a militia. And, according to The Constitution, the militia was to be armed and supported by Congress, was under the leadership of the President, and its jobs were to repel invasions and put down insurrections.

The Constitutional debates yield even more information. For there was a new kind of aristocracy that was to be supported by The Constitution. This new kind of aristocracy was not based on the privileges provided by one's birth. Rather it was based on one's economic class. And what the writers of The Constitution wanted to do with its document was to preserve the status quo for the benefit of the landed interests. Here we should note that for all of the bragging of the exceptional nature of our founding fathers and The Constitution, the majority were slaveholders who wanted to expand westward regardless of the fact that such would mean the continued displacement of Native Americans.  Now if we add to that that only 5% of the population could vote after the ratification of The Constitution and that 55 consisted of landowners, one has to wonder how any group could put our founding fathers on the pedestal that the Conservatives have when they engaged in ethnic cleansing, holding slaves, and restricting the right to vote. In fact, It was Madison who expressed fear at the thought of elections being opened up to all classes of people in England. He expressed that fear during the Constitutional debates.

Those who have embraced the exceptionalism of conservatism, because of conservatism's constant practice of self-exaltation have most probably joined a cult. And those Christians who have joined this cult can now be considered to be polytheists.

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

March 14

To Joe Carter and his blogpost criticizing the Georgia governor’s attempt to use the scriptures to show that Christian businesses should be allowed to refuse to provide goods and services to same-sex marriages. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website. 

With the line of thought employed by Carter here, then Christians opposing integration during Jim Crow for religious reasons had their consciences wrongfully infringed on when the gov't worked to end Jim Crow. 

We have to realize that in society, the conscience has only a sphere of sovereignty, it is not autonomous. And what is and is not included in that sphere of the conscience should be determined on a case by case basis. Certainly, religion should not be used to violate the legitimate rights of others. Some would point out the abortion issue and a women's right to choose as an objection to that line of thinking. The problem there is that such an objection assumes that the unborn have no rights. And thus once recognizing that the legitimate rights of the unborn, then the state should have the right to protect those rights against the individual choices based on conscience made by those seeking abortion. 

It is one thing if the state was protecting religious institutions from having to provide public services to those functions that it could not participate in in good conscience. But that isn't the case here. The issue here is whether Christians business owners have the right to deny goods and services to same-sex marriages, not just weddings, in a Capitalist economy? Here, Christian business owners need to adequately explain why such participation is a true violation of conscience and not an attempt to marginalize the LGBT community in society. So far, I have not heard any legitimate explanations that show it is a true violation.

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

March 15

To Denny Burk and his blogpost citing Russell Moore’s voting philosophy which consisted of voting for 3rd party candidates when the candidates from the 2 major parties offer no legitimate moral option. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.

Though I don't fully agree with Moore's approach,I respect it for it shows independence and conviction. And we need more truely independent voters like Moore.

Though I am pro-life, I no longer use a stand on abortion litmus test in voting. Why? Because tthere are multiple issues that should be associated with pro-life that are not. With some of these issues,  at least one of the alternatives would move us closer to destroying the world. And to me, if we wreck the world by waging war or destoying the environment, abortion becomes a moot issue. So unless candidates become more consistently pro-life, I can't use the aborition litmus test in voting.

In addition, to make the judgement seat of Christ our #1 concern in voting turns our vision inwards. What will happen to me if I vote for candidate x or candidate y. I think we need to turn our vision outward to see how candidates x or y's election will hurt or help people, especially the multiple varieties of vulnerable people, should determine how we should vote and resign ourselves to whatever judgment God gives..

Finally, the word on my street is that conservative voters have no credibility when it comes to speaking about opposing abortion with pro-choice advocates. The reason for that is consistency. So perhaps it is necessary in order to effectively bring an anti-elective abortion message to more people that we put it on the backburner for now and wait until we show more consistency in our pro-life convictions before making abortion an election issue again.

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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost citing an article that says all forms of socialism end up with the same tyrannical result as was seen in Stalin’s Russia. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.


Dr. Clark,
To treat socialism as a monolith, as the article you referenced does, is ignorance for some, but not for all. To ignore the criticisms that socialists had of Lenin's model of government in order to group all socialists together so one can conclude that Stalin's gov't is the destination of all forms of socialism is to deliberately ignore the different forms of Socialism that has been tried and discussed. And limiting one's sources on Socialism to just its antagonists is simply intellectually dishonest.

Yes, there have been forms of socialism that have led to tyranny. For example, when Iran's (1953) democratically elected leader Mossadeg moved to nationalize oil resources, both England and the US orchestrated a coup that replaced Mossadeg with a brutal tyrant, the Shah. When Chile's(1973) democratically elected leader moved to nationalize certain industries, the US orchestrated a military coup to install the tyrant General Pinochet as its leader. Pinochet would later be indicted for crimes against humanity but died before he could be tried. When Guatemala's (1954) democratically elected leader Jacobo Arbenz pushed land reform, the US orchestrated a coup that installed the military dictator Carlos Armos. When it was possible that Greece's 1967 election could have produced a left-leaning government, Colonel Papadopoulos used a NATO plan designed to keep Greece from falling to communism to orchestrate a coup prior to the election so that a military junta would rule Greece. BTW, one should read the LBJ quote that was part of the conversation between the Greek PM who was in power before the coup  (see http://www.ahistoryofgreece.com/junta.htm   ). 

Of course anti-Capitalists experiments like the Paris Commune and the Spanish Revolution serve as stark counterexamples to the claim that Socialism always leads to a Stalin type tyrannical regime. So do certain forms of Socialism such as Libertarian Socialism. Libertarian Socialism does not support a central state government.

But what is even more disengenous than what was written in the article referenced is that Sanders has carefully equated his idea of Socialism with FDR's New Deal. If FDR's presidency could be called Socialist, then the result of FDR's programs contradict the basic claim made by the article referenced. But what we have seen instead is a more gradual approach to the trend established above. We are now classified as a oligarchy, not a democracy. And part of that oligarchy has been a move away from FDR's programs to what existed before (see  http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746  ) because such programs interfere with state Capitalism--something Eisenhower warned us against when he spoke against the Military Industrial Complex.

At Westminster, we were constantly challenged to go to the original sources to learn about what was being taught. But such a principle doesn't apply on this board when talking about Socialism. And the information is easily available. One could read Rosa Luxembourg, Anton Pannekoek, Noam Chomsky, and others to see what Socialists are saying for themselves. The road chosen by this board is to remain insular and only read Socialism's antagonists to learn about Socialism. Of course, doing so is like investigating Christianity by only talking with Bill Maher. 

Quite simply, the article this post referenced is intellectually dishonest. And if I was a nonChristian, it would give me grounds for not believing any gospel preached by you since you refuse to go to original sources to see what Socialists say for themselves. If you were to do that, you will find a variety of views of Socialism.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how increasing economic freedom can reduce human trafficking. This appeared in the Acton blog.

There is no doubt that greater financial opportunities can lead to less human trafficking. On the other hand, greater economic freedom isn't always used to increase the flourishing of all people. Some economic freedom, such as a relaxation of labor or environmental laws, allows the beneficiaries of economic freedom to exploit others. Allowing employers to pay employees poverty wages is an economic freedom for the employer which does not help the employee. Allowing owners to offshore jobs can bring economic freedom to owners but that freedom  is used to take advantage of places with inadequate regulations and laws. In addition, allowing economic freedom for some can also mean excusing owners who benefit the most from infrastructure from paying taxes to maintain that infrastructure. We should also note that some who have become victims of trafficking were lured into captivity by the promise of economic opportunity.

IN short, to talk about economic freedom in general as a tool to help people escape dire circumstances is very similar to talking about reducing regulations to help businesses. The general concept is too ambiguous to be meaningful and thus what is needed is not talk about increasing economic freedom in general, but talk about whose economic freedom is being created and what specific freedoms are being afforded.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost containing a video presentation by William Voegeli on Government growing too big by trying to provide too much for its people. This appeared in the Acton Blog

This presentation is rather intellectually dishonest in a couple of ways. When talking about the government intended by our founders, we need to realize that since The Constitution was written in response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion, it was written to strengthen the Federal government by increasing its ability to respond to future rebellions that were challenging the status quo. One only needs to read all of the references to the militia made in The Constitution to see substantial evidence that would support that interpretation.

In addition, while the presentation talks about the growth in the government outlay for social benefits, the two largest social outlays are self-funded: Social Security and Medicare. In fact, Social Security is the biggest holder of our National Debt. And cutting Medicare expenses has been hampered by Federal law that prohibits the from negotiating on pharmaceutical products. The prices of our drugs cannot be explained by R&D costs since bulk of those costs are paid for by taxes that fund the research performed by the NIH. Rather, the pharmaceutical prices are there to allow pharmaceutical companies to provide an ever growing ROI for its shareholders. This is what the price gouging of opportunists like Martin Shkreli points out.

In addition, what is not mentioned at all in terms of the growing percentage of government spending in relation to our GDP is the prosecution of unfunded wars such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, Chalmers Johnson pointed out in around 2008 that the total US spending on defense, which is well distributed among several federal budges such as the DOD, Treasury, and the Atomic Energy Agency to name a few totals over $1 trillion. Why was that never mentioned? And another omission is how our Federal gov't continues to support our financial institutions in ways that allow these institutions to significantly increase profits.

It seems that the conservative approach to discussing big government is to lay the blame for such government at the hands of the vulnerable with many of those vulnerable having been victims of our economic system. Such is morally wrong and the way it is discussed is intellectually dishonest.

Finally, we should note that government is like love in one way: size doesn't matter, fidelity does. A small impotent government is has harmful to the population as a large government whose first love consists of certain private sector elites--this is commonly called Crony Capitalism. Government should be big enough to protect the people from both internal and external threats to justice. And people living in poverty provide examples of injustice especially when that poverty is caused by exploitation and the hoarding of wealth.

We should note that here in America, the Conservative Church is coming alongside of those with wealth and power just as the Roman Church did in France and Spain prior to their Revolutions and the Orthodox Church did in Russia prior to its Revolution. The protection of wealth and power by the Church caused the Church and its Gospel to be despised by those seeking revolution. Will the Conservative Church repeat an ugly part of Church history? Only time will tell though we should note that with time running out, it looks like it will.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 2, 2016

Feb 24

To Todd Hill and his blogpost on how too much emphasis on sports can cause idolatry and other problems. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition Website.

Do Christian parents flirt with the idol of sports? If they only flirted, sports would not be an idol. And the problem is that we have grown up to passionately embrace sports, and that is what makes sports an idol.

We often think about the good and bad effects of sports on the participants. And those good or bad effects vary according from sport to sport. And certainly, we can cause our kids to OD on playing sports.  But we often don't think about the effects sports has on the spectator. I grew up not too far from where Todd's church is and to grow up outside of Philly is to be raised a sports idolator. However, that isn't all. To be raised as a sports idolator in the Philly area means that one is constantly disappointed by one's gods. But there is something else and this is from a secular point of view. The more avid sports fans we are, the more we are taught to be tribal, reactive rather than reflective, and obedient to orders. And that what the fans experience. In addition, I found that being an avid sports fan was just another way of being a manic-depressive. Some of these insights come from Noam Chomsky (see http://blog.ahfr.org/2008/05/chomsky-on-spectator-sports.html,    http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-why-americans-know-so-much-about-sports-so-little-about-world-affairs,    and    http://www.special-dictionary.com/quotes/authors/n/noam_chomsky/149304.htm).  

So once we get by the secular effects of being too much of a sports spectator,  there are spiritual problems from caring more about sports teams and heroes to contend with. Our spiritual problems revolve around not knowing enough about God and our neighbors.  This doesn't mean that sports can't be used in education or breaking the ice with people. What it does mean is that our love of sports can easily take away our fulfilling of responsibilities and involvement in both God and our neighbor.


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

Feb 25

To Denny Burk and his blogpost criticizing Kasich’s remarks on how Christian business owners should conduct business dealings with same-sex weddings. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.

Regarding points #1 and #4, certainly some Conservative Christian business owners are not looking to refuse all services to gays, just to same-sex wedding events. But same-sex marriage is a necessary legal victory in achieving equallity in society for those from the LGBT community. So the refusal to provide services is in actuality a partial attempt to marginalize those in the LGBT community.

Why is that the case? We only have our economic system to blame here When goods and services are provided by the private sector, then ability to refuse goods and services by the private sector to a particular group introduces the possibility that that group can experience partial or even full deprivations as punishment for some characteristic of their group. And those of us religiously conservative Christians have defended the refusal to provide goods and serices to same-sex weddings   in a capitalist economic system have done so purely from a myopic perspective forgetting the social responsibilities businessowners have in our economic system

As for point #4, the willingness of Christian busnessowners to participate in unbiblical heterosexual weddings points to their unwillingness to do the same for same-sex weddings clearly results in discrimination.

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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote criticizing the LGBT movement as being against free speech and thought. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

The above quote has two problems. First, it speaks of the LGBT movement as a monolith. Second, it seems to have the same problems with consistency that those who support America's War on Terror have. That is that the genesis of the conflict begins with what others did to us. Where were the cries for freedom when Christians supported the criminalization of homosexuality or opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage because that would result in society regarding homosexuality as normal or who supported laws that allow employers to terminate the employment of those from the LGBT community on the grounds of their sexuality?

Yes, some in the LGBT community are employing all-or-nothing thinking in some of their reactions to conservative Christians and are thus overreacting on certain issues. But we seem to be uninclined to ask for the context of the actions we complain against the most.

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

Feb 28

To Joe Carter and his blogpost denouncing trade protectionism. This appeared in the Acton blog.

One only needs to look at the first assertion about protectionism to see the validity of this article. Much of our industrial economy, for example, was nurtured through protectionism. Thus, protected sectors of our economy grew stronger and we became a richer nation because of that (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/america-was-founded-as-a_b_713521.html  ). The same goes for some other industrial nations.

The benefits of protectionism are never constant. For developing nations, protectionism can help a nation determine for itself what agriculture and industrial products it wants to be proficient or self-sufficient at producing. For more developed nations, there are times when protectionism serves only the interests of certain groups of private sector elites.

There are free market fundamentaists who believe that the free market is the only way to develop the economy. But just by observation we can tell that such is not always true. In fact, enforced free trade can have detrmimental effects on other nations.

What we see in this article is a phantom concern by a free market fundamentalist. The expressed concern is about America's welfare should it adopt protectionist policies. The real concern is about allowing developing nations to emply protectionism. We should note that by forcing free trade on less developed nations, we can make it less probable that they can develop certain sectors of their economy at which we are already proficient. One only needs to know Haiti's history, for example, to understand why the forcing of free trade limited their economy. By using free trade to have Haitian farmers compete with American agriculture, many of Haiti's farmers, and others who were in related work,  went out of business. What is the problem with that? When spikes occur such as the one that occurred in fuel prices a few years back, imported food prices also spiked causing food deprivation to be widespread because people couldn't afford to buy forieng food. In terms of national interests, Haiti was no longer a self-sufficient rice producer (see    http://www1.american.edu/ted/haitirice.htm   ). Of course, this is just part of the story of the tragedy of Haiti that dates back to the early 1900s.

We should note that enforced free trade is neither free nor concerned with everybody's welfare. In addition, enforced free trade stands in complete opposition to democracy. and national sovereignty and, as proving true today, introduces a global economic caste system in which the wealthy grow even richer at the expense of all others. This puts certain workers in each country at risk. Even in a rich nation like America, the wealth only spreads to those in sectors that have been allowed by the global economy.  So that those who would work factory jobs here find less and less work while those who work in America's  financial sector not only discover that jobs are easier to find, the jobs are well-paid. And thus such workers, since money is speech, can better influence politicians to keep policies that favor them while workers are reduced to being disposable object of profit. When their work does not produce the profit margin that  the work of others can produce, then they find themselves without jobs.

Can protectionism be used to exploit others? Certainly because its results are not constant. But at least there is a recognition that each nation has the right to impose tariffs to either protect certain sectors of its economy or grow new sectors of its economy.

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

Feb 29

To Denny Burk and his blogpost noting the horribleness of Donald Trump’s candidacy as shown in the identity of his supporters. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog


A conservative friend of mine said to me in reference to the campaigns of the Republican candidates running for the office of President:

"God is Mocking us"

Some may disagree with that statement regarding some of the candidates, but there can be no question that this certainly applies to Trump's candidacy.

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


To Joe Carter and his blogpost on Americans rejecting single-payer healthcare once they find out the details. This appeared in the Acton blog.

How much needs to be taken in by taxes to pay for the program really depends on how well our government will be able to retrieve taxes from  those who avoid taxes as well as how well our gov't will be able to divert corporate welfare to services that help people.

But also consider that during the pre-ACA era, the most common reason why people had to declare personal bankruptcy is because of health bills and that included people who had health insurance.

So whether taxes are worth paying depends on what we get in return. And what we get in return depends on how much we care to participate in our government. If we are looking for a gov't whom we can ignore after the elections are over, we are asking for tyranny.

Even With The New Jargon, Are Prolife Voters Still Being Urged To Be Single-Issue Voters?

For as long as abortion has been deemed a constitutional right,  religiuosly conservative Christians have been accused of becoming single-issue voters. The concern here is abortion of course. Those candidates who supported a woman's right to choose were shunned at the polls by many religiously conservative Christian voters regardless of the candidates' stands on other issues. Those who opposed either all or elected abortions would all too often secure the votes of many  religiously conservative Christians regardless of their stands on other issues. Since the Republican Party has more Prolife candidates than the Democratic Party, the Republican Party  has used this issue as a way of not only keeping religiously conservative Christians under the Republican tent,  it made us Christians into their base. I grew up in a religiously conservative Christian home with Republican parents and so when I voted, I use to vote for Republicans almost exclusively--here, a bad memory caused me to insert the word 'almost.'

Becoming sensitive to this criticism, religiously conservative Christian leaders are now trying to introduce nuance into what it means to be a single-issue voter. To more and more people, it is no longer appropriate to base one's vote on the abortion issue alone. That is the message of two blogposts by such leaders, Joe Carter (click here for a bio) and Denny Burk (click here for a bio). In their respective articles, both argued that we can no longer vote for a candidate simply because of their stance on abortion. However, do both propose that Christians could vote for any candidate who does not pass their Prolife litmus test? The answer to that question is found in recent articles they wrote to their readers (click here for Denny Burk's article and click there for Joe Carter's article).

The two articles by Burk and Carter are similar. Both advocate a qualified single-issue approach to voting. The approach is qualified in this sense, there are other issues and practices which should bar Christians from voting for any given candidate. Borrowing from an article by John Piper, Burk lists the following traits or positions of  racism, fraud, or bribery as deal breakers in terms of whether any Christian should vote for a given candidate. Carter's list of traits or positions is more narrow in that he focuses on issues of justice in terms of how one recognizes the human dignity of another. Here he  at least acknowledges there are other issues that should be used in determining whether a given candidate has an adequate concern for justice and human dignity. In other words, before judging someone to be Prolife, that person must be concerned with those who have been born as well. So we must be concerned with how those politicians who claim to be Prolife would be truly Prolife by how they view and try to help children who live in poverty or refugees from nations like Syria. 

In contrast to Burk, Carter suggests that no candidate who supports a woman's right to choose could have any legitimate concern for human dignity and justice in other situations. He wrote:

 If a candidate is unwilling to protect children in the womb in America, why should I believe they care about the plight of children in Darfur?

Now after that quote, Carter demonstrates some vagueness as to whether a Christian could vote for any candidate who supports a woman's right to choose. He seems to argue for the allowance of voting for non Pro-life candidates when he quotes Clark Forsythe in saying:

there is no moral compromise when we make the aim of politics not the perfect good but the greatest good possible

And yet, how can one vote for a non Prolife candidate since, according to the first quote, such a candidate may not possibly have any legitimate concern for human dignity and justice?  Perhaps with the latter quote, Carter is giving an out to those Christians who have no real Prolife candidates to vote for. Or perhaps Carter was expressing similar sentiments as what will be expressed next by this blogpost.

It has been the position of this blog that if we wreck the world by waging war or destroying the environment, and we could add failing to adequately address poverty, then abortion becomes a moot issue.  And while Carter's suggestion that those who would allow unborn children to be destroyed in the womb may not be trusted to be concerned with human dignity and justice in other situations needs to be tested on a case by case basis, we should note, and Carter seems to agree, that protecting life in the womb does not imply that one is consistently Prolife. So in the end, Carter's position is superior to Burk's, but the ambiguity expressed in whether a Christian should be allowed to vote for Pro-choice candidates based on other issues needs to be cleared up.

Now if we were to limit ourselves to voting for Presidential candidate's from the two major parties, we should find that, outside of the abortion issue, no available candidates could be properly classified as being consistently Prolife. Certainly the Republican candidates are disqualified by their lack of regard for our environmental problems and direction. In addition, with their criticisms of Barack Obama, their patriotic approach to American foreign policy seems to mean never having to say we're sorry. Combine that with talk of carpet bombing and American "leadership" in the world, the aggressiveness that Republicans seem to be embracing will unnecessarily trigger more wars than the foreign policies proposed by their Democratic Party counterparts.

But the views expressed by the Democratic Party presidential candidates are not much better. Take the positions expressed by the "most progressive" of the two candidates, Senator Bernie Sanders. He viewed our invasion of Iraq is being wrong because of the destabilization it caused. In other words, he views the Iraq War as being a mistake. He didn't apply any moral judgment to that war. This is a similar position to that of Barack Obama when he campaigned for President in 2008. And because of that lack of moral position, I wrote somewhere that Obama would have no problem with waging wars that were not deemed to be mistakes. And what policies did Obama pursued? The overthrow of the Libyan government which required America to work with terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and the expansion of the use of drones to assassinate people regardless of the Middle East nation in which they resided. There is also a possibility that the US was involved with the coup that occurred in Honduras in 2009. There is documentation showing that the US did work to control the aftermath of the coup.

We should further note that the Republican candidates approach the alleviation of poverty by promoting economic freedom for businesses. "Economic freedom" is code for the abolition of social responsibilities for businesses. Such will mean that poverty or near-poverty conditions will at least maintain, if not increase, their current levels. And here we should note how poverty visits injustice on innocent people in a variety of ways.

So the question becomes whether these articles are freeing religiously conservative Christian voters from being single-issue voters so that they should feel free to vote for candidates from the other major party. Burk's article answers that question with a definite 'NO!'  Carter's article possibly answers the question with 'yes.' But it's hard to tell.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 10, 2016

Feb 2

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that both selectively reminisces laments about the past. The selectivity used seems to be used to celebrate old fashion American values. This appeared in Heidelblog

Though there are some good parts to this post, such as the part on our dual citizenship and the fault lying with the voters, but this article is unbalanced in spelling out what is wrong with our nation. It is almost unbalanced to the extent that it encourages Christians to become paranoid. 

Yes, there were social upheavals during the 60s. But there was also an immoral war in Vietnam along with much racism and sexism in society. As for the war, it was an effort made by the nation that prides itself on freeing people to recolonize the nation of Vietnam and to prevent reunification with the North. America ignored the democratic approach to the Vietnam problem as spelled out in the Geneva Accords and installed dictators as well as invaded the country. We won every battle but lost the war because with many of the battles we won, our methods lost the people.

As for what was at home, it was a brutal racism that had its roots in race-base slavery that went as far back as before the fight for independence. Sexism was also a problem to the extent that the overreaction of feminism could be at least partially blamed on the sexism that occurred back then. 

The seamy side of politics as seen in Watergate was previously evident in Eisenhower's warning regarding the Military Industrial Complex--the original name included Congress in the mix. In addition, it was activism, not government, that pushed civil rights onto the agenda and into the laws. Without activism, things would have stayed the same. Such gives another example of the seamy side of politics.

But let's get to the incitement to Christian paranoia. While Clark wants to  say that the legalization of same-sex marriage showed a rejection of nature, nature itself produces many instances of homosexual behavior. So the same-sex marriage decision was a rejection of the Christian view of nature. And while Clark warns us of future persecution, we should note that back in the day, homosexuals could be arrested for their sexual practices. Nothing we could experience in the near future could rival what those from the LGBT community had to suffer from laws based on our moral standards.

In addition, while Clark wants to complain that Christians are being legally pressured into accepting the new moral standards, we should note that some Christians want to use their faith as an excuse to deny equal rights to some who are different.

Clark is right in stating that there has been a resurgence of racism. But that resurgence is merely an instance of tribalism with a racial application. Here we should note that tribalism occurs when loyalty to one's group trumps commitment to principles and morals so that right and wrong depends on who does what to whom.  And we see a similar tribalism to racism being practiced with other facets such as economic class, national identity, and political ideology as its basis. And yet, Conservative Christians can only publicly oppose tribalism as it becomes manifest in racism.

In addition, we have The Constitution that was a document indended to preserve the status quo for American financial elites.

We have a dual citizenship and such is both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing because we know where our treasure should be. It is a curse because we sometimes use the importance of waiting for that treasure as an excuse to disconnect ourselves from the world in order to maintain our idols of personal peace and prosperity. And least that is what Francis Schaeffer warned us about.


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

Feb 3

To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost about Trump and allowing politics to determine religion. This appeared in the Acton blog.

There is at least one problem here and that is in the assumed definition of religious liberty. For it seems to me that what is called liberty in the article above is nothing more than privilege. That is because liberty - euqality = privilege. And while some of my fellow religiously conservative Christians are up in arms over expected persecution, we forget how  we have suppressed the religious liberty of others. This was evident when we were colonies when, for example, the Puritans persecuted Quakers even to the point of martyrdom. The lack of religious equality has been more than evident in our choice for POTUS. Consider the consternation people felt when JFK became the nation's first Catholic President. And to this date, we've had not Jewish Presidents or Presidents from other nonChristian religions.

But also, the lack of equality in religious liberty could be seen in our nation's same-sex marriage debate. The religious liberties of those who did not hold to conservative Christianity's definition of marriage were never recognized in the debate. Here we should note that it was the 14th Amendment used to establish the legality of same-sex marriage. In addition, most of my fellow religiously conservative Christians could only see how their religious beliefs were being threatened by the legalization of same-sex marriage; few if any acknowledged that the religous beliefs of those who thought that homosexuality was acceptable to God were being infringed on when same-sex marriage could be legally prohibited.

Also, as for the third temptation, we see this all of the time in religious Conservatives when they blend American ideals with Christianity. The result of this syncretism, which is a fancy word for pounding a square peg into a round hole, identification of Christianity with Capitalism, American individualism, and American Exceptionalism. This syncretism is driven by ideological tribalism. 

What is comical is how Christians point to history, as Kuiper did, to support how they've supported religious liberty when those examples consist of societies that were predominantly Christian in the first place. The real test of one's belief in religious liberty is found when one makes one's own religon vulnerable to other those from other religions by supporting the religious liberties of those who believe differently  In other words, one's belief in reliogous liberty comes when one is willing to surrender the control over society which the adherents of one's own religion have.

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

Feb 4 

To Mez McConnell and his blogpost on how misrepresenting Jesus can hurt the poor because the Gospel is not being faithfully preached. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

There is another side to this, however. That side consists of those Bible thumper, and I am a Bible thumper, evangelists who go out to the poor neighborhoods to share the Gospel, but who never go to the rich neighborhoods of those who participate in the making of poverty and the oppressing of the poor to tell them to repent and believe the Gospel. 

Social justice not only involves helping people in need, it involves speaking out and defending them from those whose love of money and power lead them to neglect or oppress the vulnerable. Those who are hurting others need to hear a message of repentance and the Gospel as much as the poor do and for the same reasons.

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

Feb 5 

To Denny Burk and his blogpost on how a self-identified gay Christian explained how she thought she discovered that homosexuality was acceptable to God. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.

Perhaps we need to recognize that, for self-identified gay Christians, the wounds they have experienced from past and even current marginalization has made it impossible for them to distinguish God's warnings about homosexuality from man's immoral persecution of homosexuals as they learn how accepted they should be in society. BTW, you can chalk the devastating effects of that marginalization up to our tradition. That should tell us that not all of our traditions are good.

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

Please note here that in the comment, I had written the wrong name of the person who wrote the blogpost. Instead of referring to Joe Carter, I should have been referring to Michael Sevance. This error comes from a combination of carelessness and switching between multiple articles.

Feb 6

To Michael Severance and blogpost that attempts to use past Church teaching on private property to defend business’s approach to using and protecting property rights. This appeared in the Acton blog.

In terms of helping the poor, it issue isn't whether we can or cannot have property rights. The issue is about how we will prioritize property rights. That was stated above when, as Carter cited Croswaite, in saying:

The principle of the universal destination of goods is an affirmation both of God’s full and perennial lordship over every reality and of the requirement that the goods of creation remain ever destined to the development of the whole person and of all humanity. This principle is not opposed to the right to private property but indicates the need to regulate it. Private property… is in its essence only an instrument for respecting the principle of the universal destination of goods; in the final analysis, therefore, it is not an end but a means.

From Crosswaite's emphasis put on private property in that statement, it does not follow that private property is necessary for the 'universal destination of goods.' Rather, his emphasis on private property put seems to correlate more with Martin Luther King's priorities including private property:

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

We should note that 'materialism' to King was one side of a many side object that included poverty. Thus, the common theme between the two quotes is that private property must not have the highest priority when society wants to address social problems. It's not that we shouldn't want everyone to have house for a home. It is that business's claim to private property are not all the same. A person's need and use of private property is different from a business's need and use. And sometimes, the business use for private property, such as protection for intellectual property or wealth, interferes with addressing issues such as racism, materialism/poverty, and militarism. King noted part of this when he saw the Vietnam War escalate and thus spending for it continually increase. He knew at that time that America would not have the necessary will and resources to fully address the issue of poverty because of the attention and resources being demanded by the War. BTW, the first beneficiary of the Vietnam War were the corporations that sold necessary goods and services required to prosecute that war.

What Carter does in his article is to use the issue of poverty to bring a personal commitment to proivate property and property rights, and then switches our attention to business's concern with property rights such as with patents. In other words, he uses the poor to protect the interests of the rich. And his use of previous Catholic teaching on property shows such a selective approach of property rights that he cannot correctly read what was said in the past. So the question becomes is Carter's first concern an ideological one that revolves around business's concern for property rights, or is it a desire to learn what past religious leaders have taught about such rights? Perhaps Carter could tell us how America's protections of private property have alleviated poverty here.

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

Feb 9

To Gavin Orlund and his blogpost talking about how our culture is different in 3 ways from any other past culture and what we can say to our culture. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Observations about how our culture is different without noting how we got there is incomplete. Why is mercy assumed while justice must be defended? Why is today's morality more about self-expression? And why do many lack a sense of objective meaning? The answers to these questions should determine how we respond because the answers to the questions tell us whether or not we should merely modify what is being said today or contradict it completely. 

What is observed in the article above is simply the outworking of post modernism. And here we should note that post modernism has some very legitimate concerns and challenges for both modernism and pre modernism, with the latter being the age that represents groups like conservative Christianity. We should note that post modernism objects to past colonialism, oppression, and exploitation in which the metanarratives provided justifications for the privileged to be unjust to others. Without addressing those legitimate concerns and challenges,  the answers described above will be incomplete.

For example, how can privileged people tell people who live in extreme deprivation that God is transcendent?  How can privileged people tell the vulnerable that life comes from dying to self while they and their audience return to their respective homes afterwards? And how can the privileged tell people that God is the goal? Doesn't one's privileged state suggest a lack of sincerity in the messages?

History has shown that either by explicit support or in silent complicity, Conservative Christianity has alligned itself with those who are privileged more often than not. And so before we tell people about God's transcendence, how life comes through death to self, and the ultimate human experience, which are all very legitimate messages, we need to adjust those messages to include the legitimate concerns that have led our culture to where it is today and what we are going to do about it.


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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost consisting of an interview in which he describes all involved in the Social Gospel, and Marxism too, as being utopian and thus having an overrealized eschatology. According to Clark, such is not consistent with how the Bible teaches us to advance the Kingdom of God. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

I listened to the interview and the following is my reaction. There are two points to be made about this interview. The first is that sometimes our models of thought interfere, rather than help, us understand both BIblical and world realities. The second is that, historically speaking, pietism, like the beginning of the Social Gospel itself, is a reaction to things that were wrong with the status quo. With pietism, faults were found with the Reformed and Lutheran status quo. With the Social Gospel, it was the status quo of society that contained grave faults.

Regarding the first point, if we liken our models of thought to cookie cutters, we find that the cookie cutters themselves both include and exclude the dough being fashioned into a shape. The dough included in the shape becomes the cookie, but lies outside the shape does not. And here, there are two inherent faults that become part of using the cookie cutters. The first fault is that, like the cookie cutter, our model of thought may not be adequate to produce the shape we want. However, if we religiously use the cookie cutter, we will not be aware of the cookie cutter's deformities.

The same goes for our models of thought. If we are not aware of the weaknesses of our models of thought, we will be unaware be unnecessarily accepting of certain behaviors and beliefs and being unnecessarily judgmental of others. And the more religious we are in employing our models of thought, the more we will remain in denial of the problems our models of thought produce. There is another point here though, the more religious we are in applying our models of thought, the less likely we will listen to the views of others which challenge our models of thought. And the less likely we are to listen, to more we imply that we have everything to teach those with whom we disagree and nothing to learn from them.

The second fault of the cookie cutter is that sometimes we need new ones to make better shaped cookies. But if are religiously attached to our current cookie cutters, we will do nothing more than create cookies shaped in the old patterns. Likewise, when our models of thought are not sufficiently updated, it will be difficult for us to realize changes that have taken place in the different movements we've studied. Changes such as neither all Marxists nor those involved in the Social Gospel are utopians and thus not all suffer from an overalized eschatology. Now those religiously commited to the old models of thought would not realize that some Marxists and some involved in the Social Gospel do not expect a utopia. And the fault for their misperceptions lies with not having updated their models of thought. And since the more religiously one is committed to their model of thought, the less likely that one is really listening to those disagree, it is reasonable to understand how changes in different groups can fly under the radar of those who are too committed to their models of thought.

The above is how I see Clark's misperception of some of the Social Gospel movement. But the failure to recognize change does not stop there. When Clark so religiously applies Acts as a model for advancing the Kingdom of God and Peter's instructions to the saints on how to do the same, there is an implication that the historical context of believers back then and the context for today's believers are not significantly different. And we would never guess that could happen if we were religiously committed to some of the models of thought which Clark is committed to. But if we take an inductive approach to comparing the living contexts of the 1st century Church with today's Church, we find a number of significant differences from the absence of the Apostles in today's world as compared to the 1st century, to a world which was having the Gospel introduced to it vs a world in which the Gospel has been preached throughout, to an empire for a form of government vs a number of democratic republics.  Each of these difference are significant changes in our respective worlds and yet Clark demands that we only imitate what was done back in the 1st century to advance the Kingdom of God. All of this points to an inflexibility and an inability to recognize change in those who are religiously committed to some of the models of though Clark is committed to.

From the above, we can understand why Clark pigeonholes all associated with the Social Gospel as either belonging to or will be belonging to theological liberalism and having a overrealized eschatology.  It isn't that he is wrong about all involved in the Social Gospel and Marxism as well.  It is that he is wrong about some. And that is because his models of thought as expressed in the interview were precise enough in understanding the Social Gospel from both the past and the present.

Second, we should note that pietism is a reaction to failures in the established Reformed movement. The failures revolved around those whose lives were not consistent with their doctrine because they used doctrine as a substitute for more godly living. The failure of those who are Reformed to acknowledge their failures were, and are today, condemned to continue in those failures. And one of the results of continuing those failures is to dishonor the Gospel before both believers and unbelievers. When those who are Reformed do not appropriately acknowledge the legitimate concerns that Pietists, and we can include can include those involved with the Social Gospel today, those who are Reformed have again said that they have everything to teach and nothing to learn. And thus they push Pietists and those involved with the Social Gospel to theological liberalism.

Finally, we should note the necessity in including what is called the Social Gospel with the preaching of the Gospel. Whereas the preaching of the Gospel has included the preaching against individual sins, the Social Gospel includes the preaching against corporate sins--sins committed by groups that result in visiting injustice on others. Why? Because in preaching and teaching the Gospel, all sins must be preached against. Such does not imply that we must provide an alternative system to the systems that practice injustice. But it does mean that we cannot ignore injustice as practiced by groups when preaching against sin

But something else should be added. The Christian life Clark proposes is one of the Church being quiet in the face of state and system sins. Individual Christians may speak up, but the Church as an institution is not. The result is that the Church as an institution becomes silently complicit in the corporate sins os the status quo. Such severely damages the reputation of the Gospel today.