Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 12, 2022

 Dec 22

To R. Scott Clark and the Reverend Dr Peter Sanlon for the part of Sanlon's article quoted in Clark's article that warns the PCA not to accept any appeal or argument made by Side-B Christians regarding their standing in that denomination. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Sanlon's article can be found at either

https://theaquilareport.com/a-letter-to-pca-friends-from-england-speaking-to-your-future/

or

https://www.reformation21.org/blog/a-letter-to-pca-friends-from-england

There are several problems with the above article. The first problem is that there seems to be an expressed fear of being able to distinguish the different flavors of Side-B Christians.  There is an expressed fear that if the more acceptable Side-B Christians are welcomed as spiritual peers, then the worst Side-B Christians are sure to follow. Such thinking is a form of all-or-nothing thinking which, in part, is part and parcel of authoritarianism and thus not necessarily Biblical.

There is a problem with the claim that some Side-B Christians are 'downplaying' the work of the Holy Spirit in being able to change their desires. With that is the implication that those correcting Side-B Christians have experienced a fuller work of the Spirit, that they have no equivalent issues to the Side-B Christian struggle with SSA. So perhaps Machen's racism with its implicit white supremacy expressed in some of his letters to his mother is not as serious as struggling with SSA. Of course, it is unknown if Machen recognized let alone struggled with his own racism. And before him, we have Whitfield and Edwards and their accepting of white supremacy as expressed in their owning or viewing slavery. Here we should be reminded of how they benefited from those beliefs. And what should we say about today's exemplary Christians from the Reformed Theology Tradition who are accepting of systemic racism or the economic exploitation that is a foundational part of our current economic system because they, like Machen, are members of privileged groups? What should we say about those same Christians who are apathetic to the suffering caused by our nation's misuse of its military and other services or by our foreign policies because they live in a privileged country? I could go on.

Finally, isn't it one thing to question experienced or emotional based beliefs when they run counter to the Scriptures and another thing to question those same kind of beliefs when they run counter to or go beyond the scope of issues covered by the Reformed Confessions? If we can't make that distinction, then are we implying that like the Scriptures, the Confessions are inerrant and sufficient to guide Christians living in today's world? Do we really think that none of today's issues are new to what the writers of our confessions thought of or had to deal with? Are we implying that because of our Reformed Confessions and Catechisms that we do not need to list to others as they share about their experiences and feelings? 

Certainly there are faults, some very serious, that come with the different varieties of Side-B Christianity. But their problems in no way imply that those who automatically reject them as  being spiritual peers are either correct in their rejection of them or have no faults as serious as any Side-B Christians have.

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

Dec 28

To W. Robert Godfrey and his church school lesson on the changes in our world due to the overthrow of Christendom. Thie appeared on the Abounding Grace Radio Blog.

Besides oversimplifying Hegel, Marx, and the struggle to improve, Godfrey employs a double standard. For at the end he says that Christians are easy to attack because they are sinners and not perfect. And so if one only focuses on their sins and ignores what they do is good, it is easy to attack Christianity. And yet he seems not to consistently employ the same graciousness when dealing with the faults of those who sought to overthrow Christendom.

In addition, we might want to ask if there is something wrong with unbelievers only seeking to improve life on earth for others. And if Christians do not to join them in that venture, doesn't that makes them guilty of what Lenin observed and thus charged the Christians of his day with? 

So does what Godfrey said about Christians and their faults apply to whatever group, movement, or ideology that we wish to criticize? For it seems that Godfrey is complaining that Christianity is being rejected simply because of the sins of Christians while ignoring Christianity's contribution and yet he seems not to mind rejecting other ideologies as a result of employing the same logic. Here we should note that Martin Luther King Jr., if memory serves, borrowed from Hegel in some of his analysis. 

Also, if we want to focus so on the secular prophecy that predicted Hitler's emergence, why not also examine WW I to note how each side claimed that the Christian God was on their side. And what about the colonialism, imperialism, slavery, ethnic cleansing, anti-semitism, and such which were all the fruit of Christendom?

The problem with traditionalists is that they rely too heavily on the past to analyze and respond to the present. The problem with narcissists is that they don't rely enough on the past to understand and respond to the present. And if we placed a  line between those two positions, we find that most of us lean, at various points on that line, one way or the other. Unfortunately, our world changes and that requires us to change. And the failure to change wisely dooms one to suffer the harsh consequences that comes from either overreacting or under reacting to our ever changing world.

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

Jan 3

To Gene Veith and his article on how Trump is not receiving the credit he deserves for the development of the vaccines and how he is being vilified for his Covid policies. In the end, Veith asks about how one reacts to Trump and whether Trump should run for President. Veith's opinion is that Trump's influence and political career will disappear. This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos.

There is no doubt that Trump deserves credit for making the situation more feasible for developing the vaccines--though we need to remember that Trump did not develop the vaccines himself, Al Gore did.

But where Trump deserves unwanted negative credit was in his flaunting of the disease and, thus, his flaunting of medical science in how seriously he took the disease after the end of April of 2020. His flaunting of the disease included his promotion of hydroxychloroquine and deliberate disregard for the wearing of masks and his pushing people to prematurely return to life as normal. His flaunting of medical science was parallel to his ridicule of the courts and the election system after the election. His behavior, in both cases, encouraged people to prefer offbeat sources like QAnon to medical science and the courts even where his own appointed judges presided.

Yes, Trump does deserve credit for fostering an environment that helped speed the development of the vaccines. But he also deserves credit for flaunting medical science and thus encouraging others to do the same with regard how they were to react to the Covid-19 pandemic. And Veith doesn't help here when he presents the story of Trump and Covid in such a bipolar manner. It is as if Veith was trying to make the case that if Trump is not the epitome of evil, then he must be innocent of the Covid-related accusations against him.

As for whether one should support Trump for President again, let us remember how he has tried to make people so dependent on his alternative facts and himself as the sole source for reliable information and news. And let's remember Jan 6, 2020, a day that could have lived in infamy if some of his supporters had their way in that insurrection.

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

Jan 4

To Paul Krause and his article that tries to establish Western Exceptionalism by trying to tie it to the exceptionalism found in the Hebrew Bible. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I guess by praising the Hebrew Bible, one is praising oneself or one's own group when one tries to establish strong ties between the Hebrew Bible and oneself or one's own group. But we should note two problems with that approach. First, the New Testament is the completion of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament makes it clear that without that completing of the Hebrew Bible, one is left to be condemned by its principles so praised in the above article because of one's own violations of those principles.

Second, history is quite clear in pointing out the vast disconnect that exists between the principles of the Hebrew Bible and what has driven Western Civilization. However, there is a point of continuity between the Hebrew Bible and Western Civilization: religious intolerance. Religious diversity was labeled as idolatry punishable by God's judgment and sometimes physical death as sanctioned in the Hebrew Bible. A major theme in Western history is the practice of religious intolerance unless an ulterior motive could be satisfied by tolerating other religions.

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

Jan 6

To Patrick M. Garry and his article that attacks the Left for its promotion of an anti-Constitutional democracy. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There are a few things to comment on in the above article. First, there is a conflation of Democratic liberals with the Left. The Left is anti-Capitalist to varying degrees, Democratic liberals are not.

Next, we cannot adequately describe the intentions of The Constitution without noting its context and citing from Yates's notes on the Constitutional debates. What spurred the writing of The Constitution was neither the Revolutionary War nor the newfound independence from Great Britain;  what spurred the writing of that document was Shays Rebellion and the widespread dissent caused by the economic distress of the time. As a result, America's own elites felt threatened and wanted a stronger federal government that would be able to put down resistance. We should note that Madison was not just opposed to direct democracy, but also to allowing all classes of people having the right to vote so that the wealthy could be protected from the demands of the rest. Here we should remember the occupational demographics of those who participated in the Constitutional debates as well as the writer of The Constitution itself. Many were slaveholders or bondholders. 

The Federal Papers make it clear that the charge of factionalism was nothing more than political speech aimed at those with whom America's financial elites disagreed on economic solutions for that time. We should also note that The Contitution initially did not allow for voters, and only around 5% of the population could vote at the time of the writing of that document, to vote for their Senate representatives. Senators were appointed by their state governments, along with the length of a Senator's term, in order to protect Senators from popular opinion.

If democracy is the rule of the people, then America has never been a democracy in the first place. America's varying levels of embracing white supremacy has made sure of that. At best, we are an ethnocracy. But even outside that ethnocracy, whatever democratic elements that exist in our government are strongly limited by the rule of  financial elites (see  https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B  ). 

The lack of democracy and the rule of specific groups  such as whites or financial elites it is what is being defended here. Such a rule produces an authoritarianism that has profoundly infected all political ideological sides from libertarianism to conservatism to  liberalism to the left. In other words, what we are experiencing is a continual King-Of-The-Hill battle for control over the nation. And though more democratic in form that the then different styles of governments were at its time, The Constitution started us down this road a stealth authoritarian rule by privileged groups of this nation. And defense of such an authoritarianism by a religiously conservative Christian source should note surprise anyone since conservative Christianity has a strong penchant for authoritarianism.

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

Jan 9

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that advises the Alliance of Reformed Churches (ARC) on how to proceed after spliting from the Reformed Church of America (RCA). This appeared in the Heidelblog.

The mocking of the Mainline denominations simply because they have attempted to address issues that we daily face because we live in today's world is not consistent with how we are to live as Christians. And that is one of the problems with the above article. Correcting others as if one is above them is a temptation that we face as Christians and thus how we confront others should be tempered by our own failures and sins. And we should be able to do that because we who hold to the Reformed traditions pride ourselves in believing that we are saved by grace alone.

It is also nice to know that those in the Reformed sideline churches tolerate us believers who don't hold to conservative social and political views. We should thank those social and political conservatives for being so gracious for allowing us to be members of their churches.

If I were to advise the ARC about its future, I would say that instead of looking at being either faithful to the Confessions or being culturally relevant as a choice, it should look at both as being siren songs with each containing its own hazards and dangers. 

There is a certain degree to which we need to be faithful the the Confessions, but lest those Confessions begin to compete with the Scriptures for our attention and dependency, we need to lower the pedestal on which they are often placed. We need to see that the writers of those Confessions as well as other writings from the past were significantly influenced by their own cultures and life experiences. And thus, to depend too much on those Confessions and writings not only can cause us to depend too much on them, it can make us less able to translate what is in the Scriptures to today's life. Here we should remember that a key fault of traditionalists is to depend too heavily on the past to understand and respond to the present.

On the other hand, we need to distinguish between being culturally relevant from being culturally influential. That is because being influential sometimes depends on affirming current actions, attitudes, and beliefs that go against the Scriptures. Being culturally relevant simply means being able to make understandable what the Scriptures have said in order to clearly address today's issues. Our ability to translate the Scriptures that way can be limited when we depend too much on Confessions and the writing s of others from the past who were heavily influenced by their own cultures and who did not face the world we face today.

The Scriptures must be our guide above all guides. As for the Confessions, we must realize that, like ourselves, not only have the writers of those Confessions and other writings  face issues unique for their time and location, but that how we look at the Scriptures has already been influenced by our own culture and life experiences. And thus to better understand the Scriptures, we must be honest in how we look at both ourselves and the writers of our Confessions and other writings has affected how we interpret the Scriptures. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 22, 2021

 Sept 16

To Gene Veith and his blogpost that criticizes Biden's social infrastructure bill especially in reference to its social aspects of providing child care and education that includes the 1st two years of community college for anyone. This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos. The comment below was put on pending. But there is a hack that allowed the comment to be posted against the algorithm that made the comment pending. The point is that it was blocked and would continue to be blocked without the hack.

And to think that Veith complained about my calling out his Okhahoman conservatism.

But his educational concerns assume several things. First, that the vast majority of community colleges are teaching leftist propaganda while gen-ed courses in universities do not with their courses in great books and history. Didn't some Christians complain earlier about how classic education was being forsaken earlier at schools like UPenn when they were throwing out the writings of Shakespear because of Post Modernism concerns?

Second, there is Veith's assumption that the first two-years of community college will automatically transfer in to universities, to both biblical and unbiblical--somewhat like the old regular and unleaded gas--colleges, and put those students into their 3rd year. I have worked with analyzing the transfer of credits from community college to 4 year schools to know that is not the case. If anything, the 2-year community college education means that a student will likely add a 5th year of college because not all of the credits will transfer in. And since it is unlikely that religion courses in community colleges rarely transfer into Christian colleges, I don't think that the transfer of course credit from community college to universities will work like what Veith imagined. Heck, even as a student at ORU, there were specific religion courses that transfer students had to take including the one transfer student we had from Rutgers.

Third, if Veith is so concerned about the poor quality of education in areas where there are poor and disadvantaged people. Of course he doesn't mention anything about how the shortage of funds for education and the lack of living wage jobs play a role in creating inadequate educational facilities and unstable homes.

What is Veith's main concern here? It is that the gov't might be more involved than it already is in our lives. But why is that a concern when the gov't is necessarily involved in our lives, that we are not keeping pace with many other 1st world nations in terms of education, and that we have the problem with student debt that we have? His Oklahoman conservatism, and this is not just a conservatism that is specific to Oklahoma, is suspicious of government involvement in anything other than punishing the bad guys and making sure that our military can kick any other nation's butt, If we have a working democracy, isn't gov't going to represent the people and thus we should not assume that its involvement is bad? But that is the key question here. Do we have a working democracy? And if not, how can we get one should be Veith's concern rather than assume that any big government is bad government because it is socialist leftist. BTW, big gov't ≠ leftist or socialists gov'ts. Such is a conservative myth.

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

Sept 18

To R. Scott Clark and his very brief blogpost that quotes Ignatius about how the Church is at its best when it is hated by the world but the title of the blogpost is about how the Church should avoid seeking a new Christendom. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Not all hatred from the world should be desired by the Church. I believe it is Peter who points that out.

But the title of the blogpost does not seem to match up well with the content of the blogpost.  One can comment on the title by saying that while avoiding Christendom, the Church must also avoid failing to speak prophetically to the world about its corporate sins. 

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

To John Horvat and his blogpost calling for Americans, primarily Christians, with [true] grit to stop up and replace government programs in the solving of America's problems. Here it is implied that these Christian Americans should be replacing government programs that address many of our social problems. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

A couple of the common retorts that conservatives often give to us socialists include socialism cannot work because there are not enough Christians or that socialism cannot work because people are sinners. And yet, we have the above article on how to solve America's problems. We just need Christians with '[true] grit' to step up to solve our problems.

Of course there is an agenda behind the above conservative approach. That agenda is to cut government spending so that we either can reduce or even eliminate taxes on the wealthy.

What is not considered in the above article is that the reason we have government programs, which btw have a mixed record, is because of the systemic and personal failures that included human pride, greed, or fear. 

So Christian [true] grit is to replace government programs to solve our problems? There are at least two questions that need to be answered here. First, does the Church have the resources to solve all of the problems that the government is trying to mitigate? Second, does the Church have the will to solve the problems that government is trying address?

Of course, if we took the above article seriously, we could eliminate our defense department and law enforcement because all we need is Christians with [true] grit to step up and solve the problems they try to tackle. Of course everyone can see how laughable such an idea is. Then why don't we see how replacing government programs with Church solutions is also laughable? Don't we see that the Church lacks the desire to address all of the problems government is trying to address when we see church after church move out of the urban areas and into the comfortable suburbs? What percentage of megachurches exist in troubled urban areas?

There is also another agenda behind the above ideas expressed in the above article. That agenda is that the government should give special treatment to the Church so it can demonstrate its [true] grit. For perhaps centuries, religiously conservative Christians have looked to receive special treatment from the government. An example of that special treatment today is when the religiously conservative Christians want the legal right to discriminate against those in the LGBT community. During the Jim Crow era, many, not all, conservative Christians wanted, and got, the right to practice racial discrimination. And here we should note that racial discrimination still exists only it must be practiced in more subtle or marketable ways. Such an example is the current attacks on voting rights marketed as 'secure' elections.

When the government gives the Church special treatment, it often results in the Church gaining some level of supremacy or even domination over society. Why would conservative Christians favor that? It is because we religiously conservative Christians have a quite a penchant for hierarchy and authoritarianism. And so it is difficult for us to exist in an environment where equality and egalitarianism reside.

BTW, there is one more problem with the above article. What it says is that government is there only to represent some, not all, of the people. And the above article implies that government is there to represent a certain group of the haves so they can help the have-nots. And again, what is being asked for is discrimination with no evidence that the [true] grit haves would have either the resources or desire to address the problems that government is trying to address.

Yes, many government programs cannot solve our problems. But here we need to add the word alone to the end of that sentence. But government programs often mitigate the suffering of many people and they can do more when  they are joined by those in the private sector. But currently, there doesn't seem to be enough interest in the private sector to help solve those problems, many of which have been either created or greatly added to by some elites from the private sector.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blog For August 18, 2021

 The comment below was eventually posted because of ways there are to get around the making of comments permanently pending. Making a comment permanently pending is a way of trying to block a comment on some blogs.

Aug 6

To Gene Veith and his blogpost that calls for returning solely to studying Classical Literature and Christianity to create a 21st Century Renaissance in answer to many of today's problems. This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos.

What Veith, citing a Harvard professor, is calling for is to respond to the 21th century by creating a 21st Century Renaissance that depends solely on ancient material used to address the problems of the 14th century. Despite the similarities Veith has listed between the two time periods, aren't we grappling with problems particular to our time? And didn't that past approach work in a context different from today? Back then they were looking to revive Christendom. Does Veith want to address today's problems by restoring Christendom?

Do we want education that emphasizes morals? If so, why totally reject Critical Theory, CRT, and Post Modernism. These theories and approaches have been singling out the moral failures of Western Civilization including some of today's moral failures. How can we re-emphasize the building of morals while returning to that which caused many of today's moral failures? What does the Scriptures say about a dog returning to its vomit.

It's not that we should reject everything from Classical Education, Christianity and the Reformation. But neither should we reject everything from Critical Theory, CRT, and Post Modernism. If Veith believes otherwise, then his above post is just another verse from the Things Ain't What They Use To Be blues sung by many a conservative today. Conservatives cannot create a new renaissance relying too heavily on the past without promoting some of the same past moral failures.

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

August 10

To R. Scott Clark and Elaine McArdle for Clark's blogpost quote of part of Mcardle's article on an attempt to provide legal protection for some who are polyamorous. Clark's title of his article claims that we are on the slippery  slope to polyamory because of the Obergefell decision. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Mcardle's article can be found at 

https://today.law.harvard.edu/polyamory-and-the-law/

Providing legal protection for those in polyamorous relationships does not imply a slide to making polyamory a legal form of marriage. Rather, why should we Christians want those in such relationships to be punished in the public sector? Do we want state or society itself to become an additional punitive arms of the Church aimed at unbelievers? Isn't that the mentality of those Christians who think that the state and society must adhere to everything in natural law?

Many who criticize the conservative Church, are not necessarily criticizing the Church for standing by Biblical sexual morals. Rather they are antagonistic against the Church when the Church calls for the public punishment of those who don't follow those sexual morals even when those who would be punished are not members of the Church

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

August 14

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that condemns the AMA proposal to not record the biological sex of a child in the child's birth certificate. This appeared in Heidelblog.

It seems that the title of the blogpost was written without benefit of the whole story. 

Because of the difficulty experienced and discrimination suffered by those whose gender identity moves them to try to change their biological sex (see  https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-09/i19-005.pdf   in an AMA draft proposal), that category is not being recorded on a person's birth certificate. However, one's biological sex information is still being officially recorded in the Certificate of Live Birth.

Though I am not sure whether or not I agree with the proposal, I understand the concerns that lie behind the proposal. And since the biological sex of a each child is still being recorded on the Certificate of Live Birth (see  https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-announced-policies-adopted-final-day-special-meeting    ), I believe that the above title overstates what is happening. Then again, some fellow Christians believe that the state should punish those who are looking to transgender and that society should marginalize them. That is tragic. And that, IMO, is what lies behind the concerns expressed in the above title and blogpost.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 14, 2021

The comment below was blocked in its original form. Thanks to a hack, it was posted later. 

July 9

To Gene Veith and his blogpost on how Christianity is seeing an increase in adherents in the nation of Iran. At the end, the article states that the increasing influence of Christianity in Iran is a 'blow to Western Secularism.' This appears in the Cranach blog on Patheos.

What is the compulsion to make progress or set backs for Christianity as either a blow to or victory for Secularism? Why not allow for interpretations of the news that assumes a context of peaceful coexistence rather than for some kind of competition for control?

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

July 13

To R.Scott Clark and his blogpost quote from an article by Jon Payne that stated that there is no room for compromise with Side B Christianity and CRT because they are unbiblical. This quote of Payne's article appeared in Heidelblog. 

Jon Payne's article, from which Clark's quote originally appeared in, can be found at: 

    https://gospelreformation.net/the-pcas-bright-future-without-a-bigger-tent/

"We mustn't make room for Side B or CRT"? Does that mean that those who believe to any significant degree in what Side B or CRT are saying must be excommunicated from the Church? That neither view has any truth in them? Is that what is behind that quote?  After all, to take that quote with any seriousness at all and to take what he says later in the article about how there can be 'no compromise,' Church discipline is required on those who advocate any part of either view. Otherwise, the Church could affirm the legitimacy of parts of Side B and CRT.

But my guess is that the PCA doesn't want to discipline those who advocate to any significant degree those questionable views. The conservatives in the PCA just wants marginalize those who advocate such views within the denomination. Perhaps it is out of hopes that such advocates would disappear from the denomination out of attrition. But certainly, this is a control issue. And though such fears are more understandable for the Side B view, such fears over CRT has more to do with what is and is not kosher with the PCA subculture than with the Bible. That subculture being a predominantly an American conservative political one. And that subculture view is more dominated by influences from European and our nation's founding fathers, and thus a white subculture view, than by the Scriptures.

We should note something about racism in the discussion of CRT. While most conservatives who reject CRT want racism to be defined in terms of what it means to them, most of whom are white, CRT defines racism in terms of what it means to the victims of racism. Thus, such a rejection shows a problem that those conservatives have with being self-absorbed. But such a reliance on the past also shows a continuity with the Pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking  in Mark 7: those who relied on their traditions to understand the Word of God.

In short, the all-or-nothing approach to Side B and CRT is more out of the most pronounced weakness of conservatism: that they rely too much on the past, here I am excluding the Scriptures, to understand the and respond to the present. And in that sense, conservatives are against the notion of always reforming but are also in danger of associating unbiblical conservative subculture views too closely with the Scriptures.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs for May 12, 2021

 April 30

To R. Scott Clark and his article that tries to answer accusations made against a theological camp of which he is a member: 2 Kingdom Theology. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I understand and respect Clark's reactions to the R2K monicker and the allegations made against 2KT listed in the above article. It sounds like the motivation for the allegations is that of establishing guilt by association. And that can be troublesome especially when the allegations are not true.

But I wish that a couple  of the above allegations were true because they could address some of the deficiencies in 2KT. There is also the weakness exhibited in the above defense provided by Clark of defending positions by relying more on theology than the Scriptures. Below are some of the allegations that I wish were true.

Allegation #1: not only do I wish that 2KT would support civil unions for same-sex couples, I want it to defend same-sex marriage in society, not in the Church. Why is that? It is because to do otherwise would be to work against full equality for those in the LGBT community in society. In addition, it is some given theologies, not the New Testament, that prohibits society from allowing same-sex marriage.

We should note that as strong as Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1 is, it does not move homosexuality outside of what can be normally expected of unbelievers. In addition, in I Cor 5, Paul deals with a heterosexual sin that is described as being beyond what should be expected from unbelievers. In describing that sin in that way, Paul has implied that that heterosexual sin is worse than homosexuality. And in neither Romans 1 or I Cor 5 does Paul suggest that any social sanctions should be put on the practitioners of those sins. By removing the practitioner of the gross heterosexual sin from the Church, he has handed that person over to society while stating that he cares not for the purity of society. Such does not make a strong New Testament argument for legally prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Allegation #3: There is a compulsion by many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians to find ways to exert a Christian control over society. One such way is to claim that natural law must be, in all cases, the basis for laws governing society. And so when Clark adds that parts of the Scriptures serve as a basis for that natural law, one is vying for some degree of supremacy for the Christian faith over society. And if one was to be consistent there, one would have to denounce democracy when insisting on some degree of supremacy for the Christian faith over society. And because the insistence that all of a natural law that is based on the Scriptures must be legally binding for those in society, 2KT has lost any significant difference it claims to have over Transformationalism.

To give an example for why the insistence by some of my fellow religiously conservative Christians is problematic, one only has to consider the homosexual issue. In nature, homosexuality is practiced in around 1,500 species with benefits to the members of at least some of these species. Thus, to use natural law to argue against homosexuality while natural law, as it can be observed provide contradictory examples in the animal kingdom gives a mixed message.

Insisting on the Christian interpretation of natural law is imposing Christianity on others in a nation that is multi-religious and is based on religious freedom. Jesus warns us against doing so. It is one thing to have our faith as a reason to  protect the rights and lives of those being oppressed, but that is not the case here.

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

May 3

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that takes part of an article on what being woke has caused some people to do. This appeared in Heidelblog.

With all of the falsehoods spread on the internet, there is no way that the claims made in the above article can be verified. Information about the website source is sketchy. The domain site is 3 years old. The name of the organization that owns the domain and basic information about that organization is redacted (see https://www.scamadviser.com/check-website/threadreaderapp.com ). The name of the author of the article cited is incomplete and there is no mention of the name of the organization the author wrote about. So if we are concerned with the commandment prohibiting bearing false witness, what should we do with such a story that allows for no verification? And is it responsible to make the generalizations about those who are woke which Clark makes based on the story?

In addition, to a certain extent, those of us who have been privileged in society will have trouble understanding what the marginalized have to say. Why is that? Perhaps it is what Manfred Max-Neef said about what it takes to understand those who live different lives than we have. He gave being in love with a person as his example. He said that no matter what we have learned from studying the subject of being in love, we can never understand it until we have had that experience. He applied that lesson to poverty as he left academia to live with the poor in order to understand poverty. He found that he really didn't understand poverty until he lived among the poor.

So for those of us who have lived privileged lives, how much can we understand what it means to be marginalized because of one's race, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any factor that has caused one to be marginalized for the most of America's history? The answer to that question doesn't mean that we can't help or try to sympathize. Perhaps we can give some guidance. But can those of use who struggle to observe the problems that the marginalized have lived through and still experience on a day to day basis understand those problems when our privilege has kept us in various bubbles? 

On the other hand, we need to recognize the traps that face some who are marginalized and who are seeking to undo long-term social injustices. The first trap is in how one approaches the solution to social injustices. That trap is to react in a phobic manner where we employ all-or-nothing thinking that throws out everything associated with a given social injustice along with those factors that actually contributed to maintaining those injustices.  This phobic reaction consists of a real fear of not being able to distinguish between those factors that are merely associated with social injustices from the factors that have contributed to social injustices. The phobia reaction is like that what a child might experience who developed a phobia of dogs after getting bitten by a dog. The child is afraid that he/she cannot distinguish a friendly dog from a unfriendly dog and thus is scared of and flees all dogs.  Should we speak harshly to  those who react that way to social injustices they have experienced or should we seek, as much as we can to listen to and learn from them?

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

May 7

To Gene Vieth and Carl Trueman as Veith reviews Trueman's article that compares Marx's view of religion with how society should view Identity Politics. This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos.

Trueman's article

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/04/identity-politics-opium-of-the-people

First, I sm not sure if Veith fairly represents what Trueman is saying about Marx's view of religion. For Veith says Trueman as saying that Marx saw religion as a 'helpful phenomenon.' But note what Trueman said about Marx's view of religion:

Marx has no sympathy for religion, he has deep sympathy for the poor people who put their trust in it.

After quoting Trueman's citing of Marx's famous statement, Veith follows by saying that Marx did not say that religion is oppressive. But if religion enables oppression, how is it not oppressive? Note what Lenin said below as he repeats what Marx' https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm ):

Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

Note that Lenin said what he did from observation, not logical deduction. He said that about religion from how he saw it being used.

As for whether Trueman's interpretation of Marx was accurate when interpreting Marx by saying that Marx had a 'subtle approach to religion' and 'In his view, religion may be false,' we should note what Marx said in the paragraphs that follow is famous line (see https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm ):

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

Besides those points, what Trueman is saying is that what Marx saw religion as being to the people of his day is what identity politics is to us. And he says that for the purpose of completely marginalizing the identity politics movements. And I say that even though Trueman warns against totally dismissing the identity politics' as being self-serving pleading. He is not telling us to learn some of the solutions to the sad state of affairs which he acknowledges to exist from those who are suffering the most. At best, we are to only listen to their complaints to learn about their suffering.

Thus, Trueman's model of the problem here can be illustrated by the relationship that exists between an authoritarian management and labor. On its best days, that management will listen to the complaints expressed by the workers. But then, that management will circle the wagons to develop their own solutions to those problems, at least some of which are caused by management, without asking the workers for their suggestions. Remember that, throughout our nation's history, the Church has had a dominant role in determining what is and what is not acceptable in society. And now that those who have been marginalized, much by what the Church has directed society to accept or reject, have been speaking out, Trueman is saying that Christianity has heard their complaints and will, by itself, solve those problems, at least some of which the Church has created and/or maintained.

Thus it appears that according to Trueman, only Christians can offer suggestions as to what remedies can help the hurting.

Too Team Oriented To See The Big Picture

 America is currently sharply divided so much that there seems to be no common ground between the sides. In the conservative corner, we have a tag team of Republicans and Trumpublicans. And there is a growing division between the two since the latter group is looked on as being a personality cult according to arch conservative George Will.

In the non-conservative corner, there are liberals, progressives, and leftists. And there is a division between leftists and the other 2 non-conservative groups.

But the sharpest division is between Trumpublicans and the coalition of those Republicans and non-conservatives who oppose Trump. And the division so great that some of those from the coalition have compromised their political standards to vote Trump out of office.

Nothing has illustrated the division between the two main groups more than the post-election actions. Many who support Trump sincerely believe that the election was stolen from their hero. Then again, for months before the Presidential elections in both 2016 and 2020, Trump claimed that the only way he could lose was if the elections were rigged against him. And Trump's claims were enough for many of his followers to employ the basic motto that says: Trump said it, I believe it, That settles it. Then again, conspiracy theories about the Democrats have also been circulating around conservative websites for a while before those elections which has furthered our nation's great divide.

Thus, it is in the spirit of that division, that blog writer Gene Veith (click here for a short bio) has recently written a recent article on how he expects minorities to come around and support the conservative cause. Citing an article by Musa al-Ghabri, a sociologist from Columbia, Veith makes the claim that because most people from minority groups are religious while the Democratic Party seems to be fleeing from religion, that that political party will lose its support from minority members. That movements like Identity Politics, Critical Race Theory, and other non-conservative social stands violate the conservative religious values of many who belong to minority groups in America. Thus, eventually these people will find their way to the conservative corner--Veith does not distinguish between Republicans and Trumpublicans (click here for the article).

Veith would be more than happy if these claims become true because Veith wants to advance the conservative cause. And having more minority members jump the Democratic Party ship to join the conservative cause would give that cause more political power.

Now we could analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the claims made by Veith and al-Gabri, but in the light of the polarization of America, that seems to be a less important issue. What is important here is how diametrically opposed that the sides mentioned are. We have the conservative cause, the Democratic Party, Identity Politics, and Critical Race Theory. And it seems that Veith and al-Gharbi believe that followers of the conservative cause and those who are into Identity Politics and Critical Race Theory are disjoint groups of people. Such a division, as well as how Veith and al-Ghabri write about these movements, is the problem in an America that is suffering greatly from polarization.

So while Veith and al Ghabri write as if the rise of the conservative cause and the, what is hopefully for them, the demise of Identity Politics and Critical Race Theory are good things. In essence, at least Veith is writing as a team player for the conservative cause and looks at what is happening solely in terms of what will help his team, the conservative cause, become stronger.

But it is Veith's team and competitive approach that makes it difficult for him to see the problems that his partisanship is causing. Such a team approach and partisanship further divides America. But not only that, a team approach and strong partisanship can blind us from seeing what each  movement can contribute. And if we were to look at these movements as being mixtures of good and bad, perhaps we would not become so partisan because we would recognize the strengths each movement possesses. 

While Veith is not only a political conservative, but a religiously conservative Christian as well, it might help here if we looked at the example set by another very religious leader: Martin Luther King Jr.

When King compared what he saw as Communism-Marxism and Capitalism, he failed to exhibit the team approach and partisanship that Veith has for conservative cause. Rather, King looked at the strengths and weaknesses of both  ideologies/groups in order to create a hybrid between them. While King believes that Communism forgets that life is individual and Capitalism forgets that life is social, he also looks to combine the strengths of each movement despite the fact that he shared the opinion of William Temple, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, on Communism. For Temple described Communism as being a 'Christian heresy' in that it combined both real Christian concerns with beliefs that were totally against Christianity (click here for a writing by King on this and start with pg 92). 

The point being here that instead of looking to advance one's own team or favorite ideology over and against the other teams and ideologies, perhaps we need to take King's approach. Perhaps we need to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the conservative cause, Identity Politics, and Critical Race Theory and seek to create our own hybrids of these different ways of thinking. For if we did that, rather than viewing people's political views and ideologies with whom we disagree as having nothing positive to contribute, perhaps, just perhaps, we can regain a sense of real unity while having sincere disagreements. At least, one could hope that that would happen.

 

 

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

 Nov 6

To Gene Veith and his blogpost on how the Republican Party should be the party of the working class vs the Corporations including big Tech and other elites rather than the Democratic Party. This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos

Let's face it, both parties have bee owned by financial elites and the corporations for decades. The Republicans are in favor of more and more cuts in taxes and in regulations. And the Democrats became another party of financial elites and the corporations back when Clinton was President.

Neither political party is interested in empowering the working class at work. One should notice that none of the interests that the article above mentions as belonging to the working class include empowering workers at work. And the Dems, especially the establishment ones, are only interested in portraying themselves as the vanguard for workers.

What the above article seems to miss is that for all of the moral issues that it claims are working class issues, good wages, job security, and worker ownership of the workplace, issues that could enable people to create families and provide financial stability for families and neighborhoods, are not mentioned. Such stability cannot be achieved when in many from our urban areas, work for poverty wages are subsidized by gov't assistance programs paid for by tax dollars that financial elites and corporations that seek to reduce or even avoid as much as possible.

The above article is rather transparent. Loyalty is to be paid to the Republicans by workers while the Christian conservative branch of the Republican Party dictates personal morals to everyone. Certainly some of those morals can benefit all workers while some of the other morals will violate equality for certain groups like the LGBT community.

Finally, the smear that the democratic is the party of Jim Crow and the KKK has enemies: time and location. Evidence for this claim can be found in the voting records of both the 1964 Civil Rights and the 1965 Voting Rights Acts. In addition, there was a partial role reversal between the two parties regarding racial equality.

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

Nov 10

To Gary Houchens and his proposal that America employs a Nationalist education, somewhat like the Patriotic education proposed by the Trump Administration. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Besides the use of a couple of false dichotomies and some other niceties, what Houchens fails to appreciate in his proposal of a Nationalist education is that it includes an a priori approach to determining the net value of the nation after weighing the good and the bad. In fact, that there is no single net value in teaching the good and the bad of America because America is made up of different groups.

For example, I am sure that many whites would look at America as having a net positive value after weighing the good and bad of their history in America. But that is because whites have experienced more of the good than the bad in living in here. But what about the forgotten race in Houchens's article, the Native Americans? What would the net value of America be according to many of them? And we could also include the net value of America according to many Blacks? And what would the net value of America be according to nations that have experienced America's policies? How many of them would have said that there was a positive net value from those policies?

To have a Nationalist education in order to build unity and appreciation for America makes such an education take an a priori approach to weighing the good and the bad in America's history. But whether the net value is seen as being good or bad might very well depend on what group of Americans one belongs to. And yet the purpose of such an education is to build unity and appreciation. Can we see the rub?

 

 

 

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 28, 2020

 Oct 20

To Gene Veith and his blogpost that that some progressive views are shared by views used that produced slavery. This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos.

This is more scapegoating nonconservatives for our problems. Such is gaslighting. The above mentioned factors do not produce an adequate basis for slavery. And, in fact, it falsely describes Critical Race Theory (CRT) in terms of its view of race. Please note the following from a CRT website (see https://www.dismantlingracism.org/racism-defined.html ):


Race is a social and political concept, not a scientific one


AND


All European immigrants did not and do not become white at the same time (Irish, Italians, Jews). Becoming white involves giving up parts of your original culture in order to get the advantages and privileges of belonging to the white group.

Now consider what was written above:


The second element that makes slavery possible is classifying human beings into immutable, separate, and hierarchical groups. Slaveholders in the 18th and 19th centuries believed that people who are Black must be slaves on account of their race. This group and racial essentialism, says Dr. Mitchell, has come back in critical race theory. Again, this is inverted from slavery, as “Whites” are considered morally inferior to “Blacks,” but sorting out people according to the group they belong to and assigning benefits and harms accordingly is the kind of thinking that gave us slavery.

If classifying humans into separate hierarchical groups is a part of slavery, then who, according to the first two quotes, is doing the classifying? Actually racial classification has been practiced in America from its very beginning. To shift all of the blame for classifying people according to race and for slavery on to progressive tenets is to scapegoat progressives for today's problems AND to imply that our nation's founding fathers had more beliefs in common with today's progressives than with anyone else. And just think all of those good solid Christian leaders who supported white supremacy and race-based slavery have more in common with today's progressives than today's conservatives. But weren't those early Christian leaders considered to be conservatives by today's conservatives?

By only focusing on possible progressive ties to slavery, Veith is doing something horrendous: he is demonizing another group. This isn't the only article in which he has found fault only with progressives for what is wrong. It is a constant practice for him and what he is dong furthers the ideological divide in this nation. But worse than that, he is stepping into the role of the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying.

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

Oct 26

To Grayson Gilbert and his blogpost that real Christians cannot support the Democratic Party. This appeared in The Chorus In The Chaos blog on Patheos.

Besides bearing false witness by the inadequate attempt to reduce the Democratic Party Platform to abortion and sex, the reduction of pro-life to the abortion issue is also problematic. So I will revise a comment here what I just posted on another Christian blog that was saying something similar to the above article:

One cannot reduce pro-life to being implying that there is no life after birth. But personal experience begs to differ.

Again, one can't support the either negligent or deliberate poisoning of our environment either through the release of toxic pollution which threatens life now or uncheck greenhouse gases that that threatens life in the future and hold a firm commitment to Christian ideals.

One can't support the elimination of social safety nets that help mitigate some of the conditions that lead women to get abortions and hold a firm commitment to Christian ideals.

One can't support an economic system that continues to increase the income and wealth disparities between the classes and hold a firm commitment to Christian ideals.

One can't support policies that makes access to health care unattainable to millions of people, especially during a pandemic, and hold a firm commitment to Christian ideals.

One can't automatically support our foreign interventions knowing that the violence we either practice or support abroad kills people, even the unborn, and hold a firm commitment to Christian ideals.

One can't cage immigrants who are escaping poverty and/or violence in their own nations because they showed bad legal form and hold a firm commitment to Christian ideals

So neither political party is asking people to hold a firm commitment to Christian ideals. Any attempt to say otherwise is nothing more than to audition for the role of the Pharisee in the parable of the two men praying. And all of that is especially true for a political party whose members tend to deny the systemic racism that has existed in our nation from the beginning.

And again, because the above description of the Democratic Party is based on reduction, and I could add misrepresentation, , the issue of bearing false witness comes into play here. And I am speaking as someone who oppose the Democratic Party because of its conservative approach to policies. I am speaking as one who, in terms of voting registration, is a socialist and a Christian Fundamentalist.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 1, 2020

June 27

To Gene Veith and his blogpost on how we can orchestrate we should honor the flag at sporting events and such. His proposal is that we should say the Pledge of Allegiance so that the words of the pledge are used to show what the flag is about. He also states that our saluting the flag should be about our common commitment to God, fellow citizens, and to principles like liberty and justice. This appeared in Cranach.

There is often a problem when we try to answer questions by reducing the issues involved to one issue. Such reductionism invites an oversimplification of the question as well as black-white thinking.

While Veith wants us to determine how we should name forts by whether the people whose name we would use fought for or against the flag, there are far more important criteria than that to use. For example, did those confederate soldiers fight to defend not just slavery, but the white supremacy that was the basis for slavery? If we use Veith's criteria, aren't we making a symbol more important than people minimizing the significance of that question?

And, btw, lest someone challenge the fact that white supremacy was the basis for slavery, one only needs to read what the Cornerstone Speech says about the Confederate government: 'Our new government is founded on exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.'

As for his suggestion about saying the pledge and how it should be said at sporting events, isn't there a bit too much conformity being suggested? If such conformity is expected, then how different will our Pledge of Allegiance be different from the Nazi's 'Zieg Heil'? Should we have such conformity in a nation based on freedom?

My own basic problem with reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is the first sentence: 'I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.' Why object to that if the pledge ends with 'with liberty and justice for all'? One reason is because while I believe in a general submission to the governing authorities, allegiances to other groups or things unnecessarily divides the Church. When we pledge allegiance to something, especially when that something is placed on a high pedestal, it becomes a possible competitor with our allegiance to God. And that is seen especially in our reactions to fellow Christians who don't share our allegiances. We start treating those who share our allegiance with preference over those, and that can include fellow believers, who don't. We see that in ideological tribalism.

Plus, if my first allegiance is to God, then isn't my responsibilities as a citizen already spelled out in God's Word?

Finally there is the problem with whether people agree that our nation, symbolized by the flag, is one with liberty and justice for all. Do we have a consensus in this nation as to whether there is systemic racism, significant police abuse problems, fairness in wealth distribution, among other issues that many associate with justice? So if we did the pledge the way that Veith suggests, how should those from marginalized groups act during the reciting of The Pledge and how will privileged groups respond to them? We have some of the answers to that question already.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Josh Buice and his article on reasons why Christians should reject Black Lives Matter. This appeared in the Deliverance by Grace blog.

As a Christian Fundamentalist, I have no problems with working with Black Lives Matter (BLM). I've seen their peaceful protests in person. I've seen one of the presentations at the Left Forum in NYC. I've conversed with at least one of their people a couple of times. How can I do that as a Christian?

It is quite easy. In fact, linking up with BLM is in certain ways similar to working side by side with Republicans and Democrats. In working with them, we are dealing with issues revolving around how do we share society with others. And here, whereas Marx is accused of making everything political, we religiously conservative Christians are in danger of making everything religious. And when doing that, we make it more difficult to work with unbelievers on political and social issues. And the more we do that, the more we enter our own virtual monastery.

The question we must address here is this, how should we Christians share society with others? Do we want to share society with others as equals, or do we want a place of privilege and supremacy over others? Before answering that question, we need to remember Jesus's warning against 'lording it over others.' Though that warning was addressing how we should relate to fellow believers, it has its applications to the question being addressed.

Do we want to share society with Blacks and people from other races as equals? Do we want to share society with those from the LGBT community as equals? Here we need to exercise caution when answering those questions because once we call ourselves Christians, everything we do or say, as well as much of what we don't do or don't say becomes associated with the Gospel. And what people associate with the Gospel by what we do or say as well as don't do or say either hurts or builds up the reputation of the Gospel. When what we do hurts the reputation of the Gospel, we are sometimes providing stumbling blocks to the listening of the Gospel. And that fact should frighten us to the core because of our struggles with sin.

If we don't want to share society with people from other races as equals, what will they associate with the Gospel? If we don't want to share society with people from the LGBT community as equals, what will unbelieving observers associate with the Gospel?

Social and political movements aren't suppose to be concerned with conversion to Christ, that is our concern. When we insist that they must be so concerned, we're in danger of making everything religious. But because what others associate with the Gospel is our concern, then shouldn't we look for where we can work with different groups, like Black Lives Matter.  It isn't that we can do whatever their members do without regard for sin. It is that we should look for opportunities to join and work with groups like BLM  so that by working on political and societal issues, we are building up the reputation of the Gospel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 28

To Gene Veith and his blogpost that cited a poll that, among other things, showed that 79% of liberals wanted a new Constitution. This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos

Those who care when citing polls, look at the source of the polls and see what repetition exists. The source of the poll cited is Quillete.com which is a fairly conservative website that has a mixed factual reporting rating and called a questionable source by Mediabiasfactcheck (see https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/ ). [blog correction: the next point made here was in error because  I misread Veith's post. He actually stated the full line in his article] In addition, Veith neglects to include an important detail in the survey statement on changing our constitution. The full statement that was asked is below:

Move, after public consultation, to a new American constitution that better reflects our diversity as a people.

I am sure that the added detail does not lessen the blow that many conservatives feel from the statement. But that full statement does take the edge that Liberals are going to ramrod a new set of laws down our throats.

As for the name change, our official name is the United States of America. America is our presumptuous self-designated, nickname that seems to forget the other nations that exist on the western hemisphere.

There are two points to consider as we see the protests and calls for change continue. First, what see going on today fits in with the often used approach to addressing long-term social injustices.That is that a phobic reaction occurs in order to prevent all future repetitions of the social injustices being addressed. With that phobic reaction is proverbial the throwing out of the baby with the bath water because there is a fear of not being able to distinguish what should continued from the past from that which caused the social injustices.

On the other hand, many of those who resist the core changes called for by the protesters either don't know or don't care about how the status quo oppresses others.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 10, 2020

June 3

To the Cranch blog in response to the article calling on us to live Western Civilization. The comment below was a response to question I asked on that blogpost that no one was willing to answer because I called Western Civilization, white people civilization.  This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos

Since no one wanted to answer the questions and Steve B. pointed out that neither have I will answer the questions for myself. I will replace the phrase 'white people civilization' with 'Western Civilization.'

#1. How do we want to preserve Western Civilization?
I don't think we should. That doesn't mean that we should throw everything away. Western Civilization is a mixed bag consisting of both good and bad. And we should not allow what is bad in Western Civilization to cause a phobic reaction that would cause us to toss out all that comes from Western Civilization.

Thus, if we are conscious of preserving Western Civilization by living it, not only could we be too hesitant to tossing out the bad parts of Western Civilization in order to maintain enough of it, we will limit how much we allow other civilizations to contribute to our current civilization lest we drift too far away from what some identify as Western Civilization.

#2. Do we want to exclusively keep Western Civilization so that we receive no influences from the civilizations of other races?
No. The real issue isn't staying with the traditions and ideas of Western Civilization even if we filter those traditions and ideas so that we stay only with the positive ones from Western Civilization. The real issue is will we learn what is necessary to survive or even improve. So we should welcome any traditions and ideas regardless of the source if they help us to survive or improve. Also, as we borrow from other civilizations, we have a better inroad into sharing what is positive about Western Civilization.

#3 Do we want to teach that Western Civilization was all good, all bad or a mix?
Again, the answer to that question is found in the answer to question #1. To claim that Western Civilization is all good denies what the Scriptures say about our sinfulness. To say that it is all bad is to deny a lot of history. To say that is a mix satisfies both history and the Scriptures.

#4. And if we want to teach that Western Civilization is a mix, what degree of good and evil should we assign to it?
That question is best answered in a respect back and forth discussion by people who have varied viewpoints.

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

June 4

To R. Scott Clark’s blogpost that contained a Project Veritas report on Antifa. This  appeared in Heidelblog.

The first description I would use on the video is 'over dramatic.' Why? It is because I knew most of what was in the video by simply conversing with Antifa at May Day events. I saw them and talked with them before they became known to the public. I knew what they were about and I purposely avoided walking with them in demonstrations.

Antifa is way too small to pose any threat to civil liberties. They believe that they are in a repeat of the pre Nazi Germany years when the Communists and the Nazis had street battles. Thus, they see violence as necessary to battle fascism. But they are not there to fight just anyone, they are there to fight those whom they consider to be fascists or fascist supporters. Other than that, they might practice some destruction of property during events. I am sure if they have on the events I went to because I had left those events early.

But there are other groups that believe that violence is necessary to install needed change in, or overthrow of, the system. I have run into some Stalinists who also believe that they can change things through violence. In 2017, the ADL release reports that stated that right-wing terrorist groups had conducted 150 acts of terrorism in the past 25 years (see https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-report-exposes-right-wing-terrorism-threat-in-the-us   ).  Odd that while reporting on the use of violence to stifle rights, that that wasn't mentioned.

Black Bloc was a group that we in Occupy were concerned about. Since we were anti-violence, we didn't want them to participate with us. And before Black Bloc, there were anarchists who wore facial coverings to hide their identities not because of the violence they would sometimes practice, but because they were sometimes harassed or attacked after returning from protests. One can learn these things just by asking questions while in public places.

BTW, there are 3 more things to mention here. The FBI has found no evidence linking to the unrest in the current protests over the murder of George Floyd to Antifa (see https://www.ajc.com/news/fbi-finds-evidence-antifa-involvement-national-unrest/qVI3U9wb8Q6u1QEvVsJ7AJ/  ). I would not expect any violence from them in this setting. Also, some of the violence and destruction of property is being practiced by right-wing groups or individuals who want to sabotage the protests. That is some of the violence and destruction, not all. Finally, people who are concerned about passing on reliable information should check the factual reporting ratings of their source. The following link provides such a rating for Project Veritas (see  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/  ).

Finally, for a group to pose an emerging threat, it has to have a sufficient number of members. That has been the problem with Antifa, Black Bloc, and the anarchists. Their numbers are way to small, and have always been that way since I have been an activist. So I would not describe them as an emerging threat to our civil liberties at this time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 5

To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost that gives a list of references on social justice and racism. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Though there are enough significant criticisms to be made about the set resources on racism referenced above, perhaps one of the most the telling weaknesses of the set of references above is that none of the resources dealing with race come from anyone who suffers as a victim of racism. And that is despite the acknowledgment made in one of the articles that those of us who are white don't experience racism while those who are Black do.

In essence, one of the weaknesses of the set of above resources on racism is that it is like a priest who provides marriage counseling. How is it that a person who has never experienced racism as a victim can tell us enough about racism to know how to properly think about and respond to it? Here we see that theology enables him to do so. And thus, we see one of the purposes of theology to some Christian teachers. That purpose is to give them a seat of honor above and a position of influencing  others. Hopefully that isn't the case here.

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

March 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 6

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

On approximately March 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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