Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 30, 2023

 Aug 26

To Heidelblog and John Vecchione for the portion of Vecchione's article on a Federal court decision to  block the Government from coercing big Tech to censor speech. I believe the speech being censored is concerned with ant-vax positions. In his decision, the Federal judge likened the government to a mob boss.

So some conservatives are celebrating both a court case in which misinformation and even disinformation on safety issues, such as the use of vaccines, can be protected free speech and states that prohibit CRT and other woke materials from being taught in schools because such materials do not promote patriotic views of history.. Of course, the mere content of the latter is regarded as indoctrination even though indoctrination is a teaching method, not content.

In the above case, anti-vax and possibly other wrong information that can endanger individuals and even the general public is counted as free speech. Perhaps, if the 5th Court was located in Germany, would it strike down and compare Germany's anti-Semitism laws to a mob boss dictating what could be said? The answer could tell us whether we conservatives are arguing for free speech or partisan speech.

Of course, we don't have to move the 5th District Court to Germany to find out. For we already see some conservatives celebrating the above ruling, which can still be reversed, while supporting Republican states that prohibit the teaching of CRT and other woke materials in public schools. Here we should note that a conservative state also tried to prohibit the teaching of CRT and woke materials in private businesses. And didn't Trump also interfere with, if not prohibit, private businesses that had federal contracts from teaching teaching their  employees CRT and other woke materials? And didn't the Trump Administration censor all references to climate change in the EPA and possibly some other agencies? And so it seems that, for some conservatives, only conservative speech can be protected as being free speech.

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

To William Bednarz and the posting of his article the denounced liberalism as being hegemonic and caused a denial of reality and thus an unworthy replacement for Christian Order over a nation when the Church holds sway over a nation. This article was posted in the Imaginative Conservative website.

Let me see if I understand Bednorz's point. Liberalism's exercise of power is hegemonic while Christianity's exercise of power is establishing the right order. And that is the case even though liberalism allows Christianity to exist and operate in society as an equal to other religious views, Christian order would force a Christian view of life on the unbelievers in society. 

Bednarz then seems to add that to infringe on the Church's duty to order society is to infringe on Christianity. But is that what Jesus taught in the Gospels or the Apostles taught in the Book of Acts or in the Epistles? And when we look at the history of Christendom, wasn't it Christian order than mandated religious wars, the enslavement of people, the ethnic cleansing of indigenous people, racism, religious persecution, the exploitation of countries and regions from other continents for their natural resources, imperialism and colonialism and colonialism?

So, again, why would he call it a 'liberal hegemony' when liberalism was embraced and followed and 'Christian order' when the Church was the dominant political power?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 16, 2023

 August 11

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the video interview in which Trueman talked about technology. I commented on most of the video on the YouTube channel but not on what he reported was why people chose Clinton or Trump in the 2016 Presidential election.

Youtube interview with Trueman:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86pmrLxW5BU&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fheidelblog.net%2F&feature=emb_imp_woyt

I provided a response to most of Trueman's interview. But his comments on Trump vs Clinton were unwarranted. It wasn't technology that explained the voting for the 2016 election.  Rather, it was the various scope of concerns people had. Those who prefer more homogeneous communities have a more myopic scope and preferred Trump. Those who prefer heterogeneous communities have a wider worldview that keeps them from being so preoccupied with what is happening to them, preferred Clinton. But many of them prefer Clinton not necessarily because of what Clinton offered. Rather, it was because of the threats that Trump brought. And the current state of our nation is largely due to the realization of those threats.

In one of his comedy shows, Lewis Black reported on a news story  that said that 13% of the people polled preferred to have a giant asteroid hit the earth and destroy civilization as we know than to have either Clinton or Trump in the White House. I think I see their point.

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

August 12

To Heidelblog and Nicholas Batzig for the portion of his article that was quoted in a Heidelblog post. His article was about Christians seeking greatness.

Nicholas Batzig's full article can be found at:

https://churchleaders.com/outreach-missions/outreach-missions-articles/391112-the-path-to-true-greatness.html

Not all employers of trendy phrases are self-motivated are merely trying to score points with their audiences. But for those who are, or should I say for those of us who are since, as James said, we all stumble in many ways, it is part of the territory of being human. As for power, some seek it honestly want to use it for good. Others are more self-motivated, In fact, being self-motivated is a problem all of us Christians have to face about ourselves and struggle with.

I think that even the smallest desire for greatness, whether it is achieved by the selfishly motivated or the spiritually pure is problematic. For in striving for it, either by self-promotion or sincere service to others, causes the process of facing our own sinfulness to result into a conflict of interest.

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

To Bradley Birzer and his article on how Jackson believed that both whites and Native Americans were equals and that white Americans had a greater claim to the Native American land that Native Americans had. This was posted in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

We white Americans, especially conservatives, have an inordinate need for affirmation, approval, and perhaps even adoration from ourselves and others for our principles and values. But all too often, when our own words are betrayed by actions, we rely solely on our words to define us. We do not offer the same courtesy to all others.

And so President Jackson believed that whites and Native Americans were equals? Did he also believe that Native Americans had the same claim to their land which Americans had their own? Did he believe that Native Americans share the land with white Americans? And yet, according to Birzer, Jackson believed that whites and Native Americans were equals. Doesn't that sound somewhat familiar to the oldie but goodie, 'separate but equal'?

Should we mention that, at that time, American citizenship was only available to free whites? At least that is what the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 stipulated. And that remained in effect until the passing of the 14th Amendment. But that Amendment only offered citizenship to Blacks while equality was still not even on the horizon.

Women were not granted the right to become independent American citizens until the early 1920s while Native Americans could not become American citizens until 1924.

Meanwhile for us fine, upstanding religiously conservative white Christians, how we want to be perceived by both ourselves and others often conflicts with our history--both personal and corporate--national in this case-- histories.

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

August 14

To Heidelblog and Stella Morabito for the portion of her article that was quoted in a Heidelblog post. Her article was about whether the Federal Government should step in to help people with loneliness.

Stella Morabito's full article can be found at:

    https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/28/beware-of-bureaucrats-wanting-to-be-your-bff/

The article cited is simply a rebellious reaction to somewhat needed government intervention by someone believes that small government is ALWAYS the solution. And what that belief in small government implies is that the small government approach is omniscient. 

And so the article employs hyperbole to represent past and present government actions while ignoring the past about Covid. That past about Covid included necessary lockdowns to battle a pandemic than overwhelmed health resources in b0th European and American cities.

The 'Bah Humbug' mentality that the Trump Administration expressed to the pandemic left the nation in shambles and enabled America to be one of the leading nations in death rates from Covid (see  https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n439  ). One has to wonder about the sincerity of religiously conservative Christians when they tell those who are woke to submit to the government because those in the government are ordained by God while they struggled with a simple lockdown meant to curb a dangerous pandemic. One could also ask if the conservative selectivity in terms of when who should submit to the government is part of a larger game. For example, the Senate Intelligence Committee had released a report on Russian meddling in the U.S. Part of that report stated the following (see https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-committee-releases-bipartisan-report-russia’s-use-social-media#:~:text=Statement%20from%20Chairman%20Burr%3A&text=By%20flooding%20social%20media%20with,institutions%20and%20our%20fellow%20Americans. ):

'By flooding social media with false reports, conspiracy theories, and trolls, and by exploiting existing divisions, Russia is trying to breed distrust of our democratic institutions and our fellow Americans.'

Why would religious conservative participate in such a venture. It might be because before the invasion of Ukraine, a significant number of religiously conservative Christians saw the relationship between the Church and State in Russia as model for America. For example, Franklin Graham had been praising Russia's measures against the LGBT community.

Of course the above is hopefully a more  imaginative explanation for why conservatives, especially religiously conservative Christians, have been reacting to the past Covid lockdown and current government actions the way they have been.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 9, 2023

July 21

To Heidelblog and Helen Joyce for the segment of her talk/interview on how parents who supported gender affirming care for a child has to live with the guilt of supporting the mutilation of their child. This was posted on Heidelblog.

We Christians would like to think that all of the gender dysphoria has a simple explanation that blames social pressure. And thus we ignore what medical science says as well as how the majority of people who have transitioned find relief through gender affirming care. 

Yes, there are those who regret their decision to transition. But from what I've seen, those people are in the vast minority. 

We need to realize that other civilizations have seen gender dysphoria before we did. Some Native American tribes have recognized up to 5 different genders and they celebrated those who were not cisgendered.

I am not saying that transitioning is right. But we simply don't know all of the causes for gender dysphoria and the desire of some to transition. And until then, yes, we stay with what the Bible says while not speaking arrogantly as if we always know why a person has taken measures to transition.

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

To Heidelblog and Joe Carter for the portion of Carter's article that complains about how Pride Day is becoming a religious holiday and that  it is against the Gospel to recognize the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism in society. This article was posted in Heidelblog.

Joe Carter's full article can be found at:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/lgbt-pride-month-became-religious-holiday/

We need to make a distinction between how our nation's Founding Fathers defined religion from how many of us religiously conservative Christians who are also Culture War warriors or veterans of it are defining religion. With the former group, only the recognition and veneration of a superior supernatural being is a religion. With the latter group, any commitment that exceeds one's commitment to God is a religion.  And though each use of the word has a context that justifies its definition, when referring to society and life outside the Church, the second definition can be seen as manipulative.

Yes, we see a lot of Pride demonstrations now that we didn't before. And why shouldn't we see them considering how the LGBT community was oppressed and marginalized for centuries in this nation. But their suffering doesn't phase many of us religiously conservative Christians because we think that they deserve such marginalization because of their sins. Consider the following Joe Carter quote from the part of his article that was not cited above:

'Because the LGBT agenda of normalizing homosexuality and transgenderism conflicts with Christianity (at least in its non-apostate forms), to “eliminate prejudice” requires anathematizing the beliefs of Bible-believing Christians. In the future the celebration of LGBT views will likely be compelled. But for now, every American is simply required to choose a side.'

The question I have for Carter is this: Is the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism in society any different from the normalization of other religions in our society? After all, other religions are blatantly anti-Christian because they preach another gospel. But does that mean that it is our Christian duty to demand that society oppress and marginalize homosexuals and the transgendered? If the answer to that question is a 'yes,' then why shouldn't we also do away with the Establishment Clause from the 1st Amendment. If the answer is 'no,' then why is it our Christian duty to convince society to oppress and marginalize the LGBT community? Why is it that we can consider the following of false religions as being normal in society while objecting to the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism  in society?

Former groups that were or are still marginalized in society, such as women and people of color, were so treated  possibly because our government was following Aristotle's lead on who qualifies as a citizen. If we promote the oppression and marginalization of the LGBT community in society, are we saying that such people do not have the capability to be counted act as citizens? Or are we demanding that society excommunicate the LGBT community from public life?

If we use the fact that homosexuality and transgenderism are unnatural, then we might consider that  same-sex behavior (SSB) has been observed in around 1,500 species of animals. We might also do well by reading  how medical science is observing possible physical causes for gender dysphoria in people. Here we might ask if nature is giving some people mixed messages.

There is no doubt that the LGBT community has many of us religiously conservative Christians spooked to the extent that we are now phobic indicated by how we are trying to get society to alleviate our fears by disappearing that community. Is that what the Scriptures demand when preaching the Gospel?

Why must the necessary Christian calling on the LGBT community to repent include seeking to oppress and marginalize that community in society? Again, we don't treat those from other religions that way.

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

The following comment might be an exception to the rule in that the blog in which this comment was  blocked may not be a conservative blog. 

Around July 30

To Talley and her comment that strongly disagreed with my comparing the debate between socialism/communism and Capitalism to her egalitarian view of the sexes vs gender role theology. In my comment she is objecting to, I took a Martin Luther King Jr. approach to the communism vs capitalism debate by noting that both sides have strengths and weaknesses and thus we should seek to blend the two. Talley believes that there nothing redeemable in any version of gender role theology. This appeared in a discussion that followed her article that opposed Gender Role Theology. She claimed that it was part of a slippery slope to LGBTQ+. This article appearsd in her blog Flesh Of My Flesh: Reflections On Gender, Sexuality, Singleness, And Marriage This blog is hosted by Patheos. Some of my comments in response to the article are still there. It would be helpful to read those comments to get a good gist of the conversation

Blog article can be found at:

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/fleshofmyflesh/2023/07/gender-role-theology-a-slippery-slope-to-lgbtq/

The comment I am responding to can be found at:

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/fleshofmyflesh/2023/07/gender-role-theology-a-slippery-slope-to-lgbtq/#comment-6243389410

Talley,

Let’s take a look at the previous biblical points. The Bible presents the relationship between Christ and the Church as a model for the relationship between a husband and a wife. At the same time Galatians says that there is no difference between male and female. And the context of that passage in Galatians tells us where there is no difference. And so I must apply both sets of Scriptures. And so the New Testament presents both truths and does not consider them to be contradictory.

How is gender role theory comparable to racism? Perhaps for some forms and applications of gender role theory, that is the case. And thus that some points can be made in the comparison. But there is a significant difference between the sexes that does not exist between races. And thus, how much you can use a comparison between the two to establish your point is very limited.

I understand that the New Testament was used to support slavery. And yet Paul gives mixed messages about slavery because he condemns those who traffic slaves, if memory serves. In addition, Paul was working with the current economy of his time with a deep concern for how the behavior of slaves can affect the reputation of the Gospel.

But when it comes to using the relationship between Christ and the Church to illustrate the relationship between the husband and the wife, he is stating something new; he isn’t accommodating something that was part of the status quo. So again, the comparison between misusing the Scriptures to support slavery and using the Scriptures to support every form of gender role theory is problematic.

I am not saying that everything that is said in evangelical patriarchy is right. But the New Testament makes distinctions between men and women in the home and the Church, but not in society, while stating that men and women are equal and dependent on each other.

But if we take an all-or-nothing thinking approach, neither your side nor the side of evangelical patriarchy has anything to learn from each other. And here, remember the Martin Luther King Jr. quote that I provided. And I believe, that taking an all-or-nothing thinking approach is the result of the reductionism that is at the base of this portion of your theology. That if we are equal, there can be no differences in roles between the two sexes in the context in which the New Testament teaches it. When we absolutize a principle as WE understand it, we put ourselves into the position of telling God what He can and cannot say.

People can misinterpret the Scriptures and their errors can lead to abuse. People can misapply the Scriptures to the same end. But it is post modernism that says if an idea can be used to abuse others, the idea must be false. And so I am not interested in how people can find ways to interpret the Scriptures out of a post modern concern.; I am interested in what the Scriptures say for themselves—I hasten to add that I sometimes resist what the Scriptures say. And those very same Scriptures address how they are misused. And so I am concerned about being guided by the Scriptures so that I neither abuse nor dehumanize others. After all, I lean toward Marx and Socialism. And I am also concerned with avoiding the absolutizing of some human understanding of a principle or rule that would have me dictate to God what He can and cannot say.

BTW, my reading list is full and so if I get to look your references up, I will.

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

August 2

To Nicholas Batzig and heidelblog for the post that quotes part of Batzig's blog article on how wise pastors learn from the past great theologians. 

Nicholas Batzig's full article can be found at: 

    https://www.feedingonchrist.com/blog/post/the-shoulders-of-giants-the-counsel-of-the-wise

Wise people do learn from the past, but they tend to do so without becoming traditionalists. Why? It is because traditionalists are the mirror image of narcissists. Both extoll their favorite time periods to or nearly to the point of believing that those in their favorite time period have everything to teach those from other time periods and nothing to learn from them--to borrow and adapt the phraseology of a Martin Luther King Jr. statement. For while traditionalists favor selected time periods of the past to irreverently praise, narcissist choose the present.

Yes, we can and should learn from Augustine through to Luther and Calvin through to the Westminster Devines with the latter being neither a college nor pro sports team. But do we presume that Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and the Devines have nothing to learn from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King Jr., James Cone, William Barber, Noam Chomsky, Howard Inn, Critical Theory, and CRT? Note that some in that list are not Christians but have important things to say about society and one's nation. Would Jonathan Edwards and J. Gresham Machen, both of whom struggled with harboring personal racial  prejudice, have benefited from reading MLK, James Cone, and CRT? 

Mark 7:1ff speaks to both traditionalists and narcissists. It does so because of how both groups so elevate their favorite time periods. And that is just what the Pharisees whom Jesus confronted did. They elevated their traditions so high that their traditions became substitutes for God's Word.

Wise people do learn from the past; but they also learn from the present. For if we don't learn from both, we put ourselves at risks of becoming either traditionalists or narcissists.

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

Around Aug 1

To NorrinRadd and her comment to me (you will have to find the comment once you access the article, her comment begins with the word 'AFAIF.' She objected to my comment on egalitarianism vs gender role theology because I am arguing that equality between the sexes and gender role theology do not necessarily contradict each other. The article in which our comments our posted and NorrinRadd herself disagree with my claim. This comment was posted in the article Gender Role Theology: A Slippery Slope to LGBTQ+. That article was posted on the Flesh Of My Flesh: Reflections On Gender, Sexuality, Singleness, And Marriage blog hosted by Patheos.

The article involved can be found at:

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/fleshofmyflesh/2023/07/gender-role-theology-a-slippery-slope-to-lgbtq/

NorrinRadd,

You're correct that it is bookended by mutuality. And that is my point! That the two do not contradict each other in God's Word. It is only when we absolutize the relationship between Christ and the Church as a model for marriage or we absolutize mutuality and equality that we end up with reductionism. To include both is not reductionistic. To overshadow either one by the other is to be reductionistic.

In addition, Christ is our Savior, but in this context, submission is one of the subjects. Sacrifice, which I did not focus on, is also one of the subjects. Mutual dependence, which is something I already mentioned, is another realization.

So you can try to say to me that I am reductionistic, but you would have to be specific here since I am trying to put equality and imitating the relationship between Christ and the Church in which submission is explicitly mentioned on equal footing. Talley, for understandable reasons, is saying that submission, which is part of gender role theology, can't be part of the mix.

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

Around August 7

To William Allen and his article that asks for the one word that defines the national character of the U.S. He suggested that initially that word was the word 'equality.' His article was posted in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

It seems that the national character of the U.S. is hiding in plain sight from the writer. Only we should realize, unlike Allen did, that our national character has not changed since our nation's allegedly idyllic beginnings. That word is 'intolerance.'

Here we should note that equality has never been the central motif of public opinion. How could it be when slavery was followed by Jim Crow and continued systemic racism while Native Americans were ethnically cleansed from the land and other ethnic groups were exploited for their labor. And that does not include how women were subjugated by men. Even the Kim Davis case required Federal court intervention to remedy the intolerance she was showing to 2 homosexuals who desired to get married.

Part of the intolerance is a, perhaps almost, phobic fear of the lack of conformity. And that existed in the beginning, when the differences were racially determined, to now, when the differences are more ideologically defined and/or by membership to the cult of a self-described Messianic figure. Our authoritarian responses to those who show dissent reveal both our intolerance and the fear that lurks beneath the surface of our intolerance.

Our national character always has been, currently is, and will possibly be the cause of our demise in the future, if the environment or war don't get us first, defined by our fear-driven intolerance of others. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 7, 2023

 June 5

To Heidelblog and William H. Lazareth for a quote from part of Lazareth's preface for Luther's Works, Vol. 44: The Christian in Society I. In that quote, Lazareth wrote that secular institutions  will be reformed when their employees acknowledge that secular occupations are religious vocations.

One problem with the above approach to social responsibilities is that it relies solely on a quote from Martin Luther despite the contextual differences that exist between then and now. But such is always the problem with traditionalists.

Of course, another problem is that Lazareth's statement is uncritically stated without any evaluation.

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

June 6

To Dr. Gordon Lloyd and his article on some of what went into the writing of  The Constitution. Dr Lloyd relies heavily on Madison's notes only because he believes what some say that Yates's notes are unreliable. This article was posted in the Imaginative Conservative Blog

With the two main sources being questioned, it is odd that the article discusses what went into the writing of The Constitution without mentioning its historical context. BTW, we should note that there might be other reasons why Dr. Lloyd has no trust in Yates's note on the Constitutional debates besides what James H. Hutson said about their reliability. For one thing, Yates's notes do not always put Madison in the best of light. Also, Lloyd does take a shining to Madison.

Lloyd fails to mention anything about the historical context for the writing of The Constitution even though the circumstances are historically well known. There was widespread dissent as well as Shays Rebellion. Henry Knox seems to have referenced Shays Rebellion in his letter to George Washington the 'insurgents' from Massachusetts. Knox, however, failed to adequately describe those who were rebelling. He neglected to mention that those who were rebelling against Massachusetts's economic policies were mostly veterans of the Revolutionary War who became farmers. Knox also mentions how these farmers were gaining sympathy from young people in the surrounding states. And Knox mentions the existence of conflicts between the states.

In both Knox's letter and Federalist Paper #10, groups of those who opposed the then current economic policies and advocated changes, such as the reliance on paper money, were pejoratively called factions. And with discovering the past use of pejoratives to describe opponents, perhaps we can discover more similarities between our politicians today and those of yesteryear than we expected to find.

That dissent and Shays Rebellion was prominent in the writing of The Constitution becomes more obvious when we read through that document to find the references to the Militia. For the Constitutional purpose of the Militia was to enforce laws, repel invasions, and put down insurrections. The Federalist Papers add an additional insight into the purpose of the Militia. By depending on the Militia to protect the nation and enforce laws when necessary instead of a standing army, the government would be more reluctant to become tyrannical.

Another part of the context of the writing of The Constitution was the percentage of eligible voters when that document was ratified. Mark Pocan, a Democrat from Wisconsin who at least was in the House of Representatives estimated the percentage of Americans who could vote to be between 20% and 25%. Here we should note that The Constitution was silent on the right to vote.

Also when we look at the makeup of the Congress, the choice of Senators for each state was originally out of the voters' hands and The Constitution's was silent on voting laws and any declaration on the right to vote. For Senators were chosen by their respective state's government. In addition, Senators were given a 6-year term, all of which give's credence to Yates's notes on the Constitutional Convention.

When we consider the even a small bit of the context of the writing of The Constitution, we get some insight into what the Framers wanted that seemed to be absent from the article. And what we find is that just perhaps the Framers of The Constitution should not be put on a high pedestal on which they are usually placed.

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

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 24, 2023

May 19

To Heidelblog and Katelynn Richardson for the part of Richardson's article on the imposition of a large fine on a church that refused to follow mask mandates during the pandemic which was cited in a Heidelblog post.

Katelynn Richardson's full article can be found at:

    https://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/2023/04/13/california-court-orders-church-to-pay-1-2-million-for-violating-covid-lockdown/

In an age of the conservative call to demand accountability, it seems that the call applies to others only. In the midst of a pandemic when medical scientists are doing their best to limit the spread of a contagious disease that was pretty much new to them, one would think that a religion that has the Golden Rule as one of its principles would be eager to follow the Covid mask mandates. That is especially true when research showed that the success of wearing masks in curbing the spread of the disease depended on how many people cooperated. And then one must consider the one judge's comments about how wearing masks does not interfere with the act of worship.

And until any church can disprove that judge's claim, the refusal to wear masks during worship could only be seen as a political protest rather than an exercise religious freedom. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 10, 2023

 May 1

To Luke Griffo and his blog article on his claims that the Transgendered Movement has a disdain for women. This article was posted on the blog of the Redeemer Church of South Hills.

The above article attempts to portray the Transgender part of LGBT movement  as being monolithic. History shows that sometimes attempts to so describe a group are efforts to make a scapegoat of that given group. The above article does attempt to paint the LGBT movement as a monolith and it does so with a combination of wholly inadequate documentation and a misunderstanding of the thinking involved.

The following quote comes from the LGBT Foundation website. It challenges the claim made above that says that a key part of transgenderism is a 'disdain' for women (see  https://lgbt.foundation/whatisawoman   ):

'A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. Many women are cisgender (often written as cis), and this means the gender they were assigned at birth matches their gender identity. Some women are transgender (often written as trans), and this means that the gender they were assigned at birth didn't match their gender identity.

Cis women and trans women are women – it’s as simple as that.'

Thus the problem with the quote from the above article is that it takes a single quote from one source and generalizes from that quote a view of women by the whole group.

That is not to say that there are no problems with what the source, cited by the article, says. For example, one page says:

'Acknowledging the existence of female biology is transphobic or cissexist'

That statement has its mirror image held by many conservatives. That mirror image says that the only factor that is involved in gender identity is the biological factors that can be observed. The problem with that view is that sometimes,, even what is observed can be indeterminate regarding a person's biological sex.. Another problem is that the biology on the outside does not always match the messages that the biology on the inside is giving a person.  Also, there are social and psychological factors that contribute to one's gender identity.

Citing Genesis 1:27 has a limited effect here because nature, along with man, fell and became corrupted when Adam sinned. And so Genesis 1:27 gives Christians a partial view of people. In addition, society also consists of unbelievers and Church history does not always reflect kindly on how Christians, including Christian leaders, have treated women.

The above article overstates the Christian objections to transgenderism. And if we want to present a credible witness to the world, including the LGBT Movement, we need to be fair and accurate in describing groups that we oppose. The above article fails in both ways in describing the Transgender part of the LGBT Movement.

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

To Heidelblog and Mary Harrington and the portion of her article quoted by Heidelblog on the assertion that there are only 2 genders.

Mary Harrington's full article can be found at:

    https://compactmag.com/article/i-was-canceled-for-saying-sex-is-real

What is missing in the above quote are the details. When it says children are having their reproductive organs removed, which children is she referring to? How many? What are their ages? And why, since surgery for those under 18 is done under special review, was the surgery seen as necessary?

In addition, gender affirming care often includes medical treatments that are reversible as well as care that is neither surgical nor medical. So why paint gender affirming care with a broad brush and suggest that some things happen more often than they do? And why not also reference the times where gender affirming care relieves depression which, because of its ties to suicide, could be life saving? Why not give a more complete picture of gender dysphoria?

The title of the article might suggest why. In order to fit within the confines of Genesis 1:27, we Christians can only admit to two biological sexes, and genders because genders are often conflated with biological sex by both us religiously conservative Christians and the LGBT movement. Regarding biological sex, there are 3 sexes: male, female, and intersex. Note that irreversible surgery must be performed on many who are intersex to conform them to either the male or female sex. However, regarding gender identity, which deals with the psychological, some  Native American tribes recognized up to 5 genders. My guess is that Harrington recognizes only two genders: male and female.

See, it is one thing for the Church to hold to Biblical standards on sex and gender. We must do that. But to impose those standards on society should be considered an overreach especially since we religiously conservative Christians ignore the newest revelations that medical science provides about gender dysphoria. As with homosexuality, we simply do not know all of the biological contributors to gender identity and dysphoria. And so we run the risk of repeating the Church's historical mistake when it first adamantly rejected Heliocentrism. 

We should note that while many religiously conservative Christian leaders and influencers looked at the 2015 SCOTUS Obergefell decision on same-sex marriage as a sign that we Christians have lost the Culture Wars, almost the opposite took place. That SCOTUS decision has only provided a spark for some of us to renew the fighting of those wars. Such a decision will not serve the reputation of the Gospel well. That is because we are trying too hard to say too much in order to turn the tide of the Culture Wars. And trying too hard to win, as most athletes can tell us, produces mistakes some of which can cost one the game. And perhaps this is a game that we even shouldn't be playing because, in a democratic society, the playing this game and fighting of such wars strongly indicates, if not implies, that one is against democracy because fighting culture wars is a sure sign that one opposes pluralism. 

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

May 4

To Auguste Meyrat and his article that favorably compares Tucker Carlson to G.K. Chesterton because of how Carlson's criticisms or Romney's view of Capitalism reminds him of the Distributism that Chesterton proposed. Heyrat, along with Chesterton and Carlson, also sees progressivism and radical feminism as a threat to society because they are against the kind of faith, family, and community establishment that conservatives favor. This was posted on the Imaginative Conservative website.

The above article is divided into 2 parts neither of which supports the title. There is the part of the article that deals with what Tucker Carlson said and then the part that advocates for a G.K. Chesterton idea of Distributism.

As for Carlson, what he has going for his case is that he uses criticisms of the status quo  some of which have been provided by the Left. Or I should say that Carlson plagiarizes  those particular criticisms because he doesn't acknowledge the source of those criticisms. And that is because he has to condemn Socialism, without defining it. But a major weakness of his commentary is that he seems to be saying that all of our problems are caused by outside influences. Not only that, he proposal that out leaders should care about our happiness forgets that what makes people happy varies greatly from person to person. And what makes some people happy is what hurts others. Also how people define a family  varies. Yes, our leaders are more concerned with their own personal profits than our happiness. But as George Carlin  tells us that selfish, ignorant people are going to elect selfish, ignorant leaders. That is because those leader come from the people. Btw, we should note that Carlson never proposes a solution to the problem so why does his observation here merit him a comparison with Chesterton?

As for Distributism, it might be partially good for a rural setting, but it works on a simple absolute premise that says that small is always beautiful. And what isn't small is corrupting. In fact, we can attribute all of the problems that we have in this nation, and possibly the world, to any large institution and/or any ism that supports what is large. What is implied by that is that if one was to supply the right setting, people would not be corrupted. And so we should strive to make everything small and every family independent. That is the ticket to human happiness. That is the conservative utopia.

And so there are three questions surrounding Distributism. First, are the claims being made about Distributism true? Second, is Distributism feasible in today's world with such large populations and large population centers? Finally, is Distributism enforceable? The last question is necessary because not only would we have to implement Distributism, we would have to maintain it too.

Distributism is marketed as providing what makes human flourishing possible: faith, family, and community. But what isn't in Distributism's advertising is the conformity that would be necessary in each area. Given the history of religious wars, there would have to be some degree in the conformity of faith. And such a conformity would lead to a  segregation of communities. Then one would have to wonder what would tie together those diverse communities so that any conflicts that arise from  their differences would be effectively minimized. 

The same goes with families. We are emerging from  a time when our nation had a singular definition of what a family is. Now, the cat is out of the bag. And what Distributism might get wrong is whether or not feminism emerged out of dissatisfaction with that definition. Was the source of that dissatisfaction caused by outside alien influences or from people who were dissatisfied with that status quo definition. And now, are all people willing to live with the differences or will there be attempts to force compliance with the old status quo definition? 

Also, how will community be established where every family is as independent as possible? Won't communities then be based on similarities? And how can there be enough similarities between the families in a community to hold a community together without segregating out those families that are too different for the rest? How strong will the sense of community be if community is primarily based on similarities? What if a family becomes significantly less independent than the other families? Will that family be eventually expelled from the community?

In other words, does Distributism account for the differences between people and the number of people have? It isn't that Distributism has nothing to teach us. But is Distributism sufficient in and of itself to even initially provide the goods it is being advertised as providing let alone be maintained from generation to generation?

What it seems to me is that Distributism relies on a significant degree of conformity that threatens our rights, especially those rights that involve being or saying things that are different from the proposed status quo. In addition there is both an intolerance stemming from the degree of conformity required in Distributism and a concern with how dependent one's neighbors could be be that either fosters or indicates a significant degree of  selfishness in those who are comfortable with Distributism. And isn't selfishness in our leaders one of the complaints that Carlson makes. And if our way of life naturally produces a selfishness, does Distributism really change the status quo that we experience now?

And  conformity needed for Distrubutism along with the intolerance that comes with it along with minimizing dependency between people and family units seems to be the common link between Distributism and Tucker Carlson.  So is that what qualifies Carlson to be compared to Chesterton?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs for May 3, 2023

 April 28

To Heidelblog and Rosaria Butterfield for the segment of Butterfield's article that acts as a public repentance for using the preferred pronouns of those who changed their gender identity due to gender dysphoria.

Butterfield's full article can be found at:

    https://www.reformation21.org/blog/why-i-no-longer-use-transgender-pronouns-and-why-you-shouldnt-either

Besides the fact that Butterfield hardline approach to pronouns and gender identity shows that she currently uses the same kind of thinking which she used as a radical feminist only on the other side of coin, there is a real problem with her whole article. What she said about Transgenderism being satanic can be said about any religion outside of the Christian faith. And yet we rightfully publicly call followers of Islam 'Muslims' rather than 'Satanists.' We call those who don't believe in God 'Atheists' rather than 'Satanists.' And it goes on down the line with other religions. We use those names respectfully because of where those people stand in society. We use those names because we recognize their equal standing with us in society.

Of course, there is another problem with Butterfield's approach here. She seems to be conflating biological sex with gender identity--something that the LGBT community does only from the other side of the coin. Biological sex deals with the physical while gender identity deals with the psychological. And so using preferred pronouns can be respectful of someone's adopted gender identity without denying what the Scriptures say about us being made male and female. 

Also, quoting Genesis 1:27 the way she does shows that she forgets that that passage occurred before the Fall when both man and nature suffered corruption because of Adam's sin. So now, we have 3 biological sexes: male, female, and intersex. And now we have people identifying as a different gender than their biological sex at birth would indicate. We have others who identify as being gender fluid. We should note that gender dysphoria and identifying as a different gender than the biological sex at one's birth existed well before the recent controversy about gender identity came about. We've had cross dressers and men who identified as women in America even before the beginning of the 20th century. But more telling than that, some Native American tribes recognized up to 5 different genders and they honored such people attributing their gender identity to the triumph of the spirt over the flesh. Though their approach to gender identities are different in certain ways than the current approach by the LGBT community, what we see is that adopting a different gender identity than if one was cisgendered is not a new phenomenon that just started in our current time.

Finally, though gender identity is a psychological concept, there are possible biological factors that can influence one's gender identity. For example, the following from a plain language summary on gender dysphoria from an article posted in the National Library of Medicine says the following. (see  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7415463/   ):

'<b>When research has been conducted in people with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, a condition where the testosterone receptor is mutated and faulty, and thus cannot function, gender dysphoria is observed as the body is genetically male but anatomically female. It is known that the structure of male and female brains differs; it is found that people with gender dysphoria have a brain structure more comparable to the gender to which they identify. The review of the literature suggests that there is a disparity between the brains of those who identify differently to their assigned gender at birth, highlighting a multifactorial underpinning of the gender identity.</b>'

We simply don't know all of the factors involved in gender dysphoria and the identifying of being a gender different from one biological sex that occurred at birth. And so for as long as we distinguish, rather than conflate,  biological sex and gender identity, it would be wise for the reputation of the Gospel that we Christians use a person's preferred pronouns when referring to them lest further research on the subject makes us look like some past Christian leaders, such as Calvin and Luther, when they openly mocked those who promoted Heliocentrism, which was later proven to be true.

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

April 29

To Michael Weiner and the reposting of his article on Religion's role in America's founding and preservation. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Perhaps we should realize that America's religions have failed to provide what religion was tasked with in the above article. And we should note that if religion is the glue that binds society, then the religion that does just that cannot be an exclusive religion unless that exclusive religion becomes the state religion. But such a state of affairs provides a major reason why American religion has failed to deliver the goods promised in the above article.

The above provides some descriptions of America that lack adequate context. The government formed by our Constitution was one that, though providing a more free situation than the aristocracies that existed in Europe at the time, it was written because of and for the protection of America's new elites. The Senate was formed as a hedge against populism. The Constitution itself took a hands off approach to voting rights though few could vote when the document was being written. 

We should note that back then, many people were protesting the economic times in which America's new elites were benefiting from. And these elites looked down on democracy back then because many people want certain practices that would benefit ordinary people. In fact, the writing of The Constitution was written in response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion.

If we want to know what should restrain us from exploiting each other, it is found in the meaning of the words 'freedom' or 'liberty,' not in religion. For the formula below goes a long way in telling us how to prevent ourselves from exploiting others:

    Freedom - equality = privilege

With that formula, if we pursue our own freedom, we will also try to avoid being privileged and having a supremacy over others. And with that we will go a long way in not just being free, but in being virtuous as well. Perhaps we will go farther in pursuing freedom and virtue than our nation's forefathers. Then again, regarding our nation's forefathers, if they didn't favor slavery, they definitely believed in white supremacy. Thus they provided a much lower bar than we give them credit for in the pursuit of freedom and virtue.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 26, 2023

 April 19

To Heidelblog and Bruce Pardy for the part of Pardy's article which mentions how Agatha Christie's works are being revised to remove the mentioning of race, ethnicity, and other characteristics and what is suggested by that.

Bruce Pardy's full article can be found at:

    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/agatha-christie-revisions-are-the-writing-on-the-wall

The above reminds me of one school publisher removing the mentioning of the race of Rosa Parks in telling her story. That removal coincides with the color-blind approach to racism taken by the Reagan Administration. 

The partial silencing of authors like Agatha Christie, Ian Fleming, and who knows who else is similar to the censoring of CRT and LGBT writers in public schools and libraries. One can debate whether the revisions of Christie's works is censorship, but to censor information based on or to promote one's ideology is part of indoctrination. And, sadly, indoctrination knows no ideological boundaries. The forced cancelation of conservative speakers at some campuses is also an attempt at indoctrination.

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

To David Gordon and his article on gambling. Basically, he is against it in all forms and he bases his claims on Christian sources from the 17th to the 19th centuries. This was posted in Heidelblog.

When I saw the title of the article, I was excited and anticipated something really positive. That anticipation was fed by my frustration with students, especially male students, I've enountered who sought to gain wealth through gambling rather than through labor where they can contribute something of value to others. In addition, while this article understandably focused on gaming, there are other forms of gambling that our nation has passionately embraced prior to the widespread legalization of gaming and sports betting.

Something else should be said here. Using the WLC without any critical review of it only places the Westminster Standards on a pedestal that it does not deserve. Those who have read about the effects that alcoholism can have on the children of alcoholics should be able to see some of the same affects they suffer from in the writings of the Westminster Standards, especially when it comes to their commentaries on the Ten Commandments. The Devines, perhaps a future name for an NFL team, tended to do the religious equivalent of what is called 'piling on' in football.

Also, what will escape the notice of all-or-nothing thinkers here is that we must make a distinction between gambling that revolves around social relationships vs gambling that revolves around obtaining riches. My one grandfather was a graduate of Cornell who had a friend who was a graduate of Penn. They use to bet a dollar on the Penn-Cornell football game each year. Should we put that in the same category as playing poker for money or betting on sporting events? Gambling can be a way of relating socially that should not be objectionable if the property (money) stakes are inconsequential. Thus, what the person financially loses can be offset by the social interactions involved.

Though the portion quoted from the WLC can be helpful here, perhaps we need to update our sources that serve as the basis for the argument against gambling. Here I would suggest either replacing or supplementing the above sources with the following quote from Martin Luther King Jr. as he spoke against the Vietnam War (see  https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm   ):

'A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just."'

The advantage that the above quote has over the WLC is that it explicitly addresses the kind of gambling that often goes unmentioned in Christian discussions on gambling: the Stock Market. It isn't that everything about the Stock Market is wrong. But the farther away that stock transactions are from the original buying of shares, the more that the buying of shares is only done for the financial benefit of the shareholders without regard for a business's other stakeholders. And such use of the purchase and selling of stocks is as much gambling as gaming and sports betting are.

The trouble with addressing gambling in a Capitalist economy is that gambling is such a intragal part of the economy. That many of the owners of property are looking so hard to maximize their profits that all other concerns are sacrificed. That is because the ethic of maximizing profits cannibalizes all other ethical concerns. And the more we centralize the nation's wealth into the hands of private sector elites, the more that gambling becomes a part of our nation's psyche.  

What is the difference between betting on a publicly owned business or corporation by buying stocks in order to maximize personal profits from gaming or sports betting for the same reason? Even buying state lottery tickets can be both a way of socially interacting with others while the funds not claimed by the winner often goes to supporting public initiatives or people who are retired or are in need.

Certainly, most forms of gambling are wrong. But to make that point, we Christians need to rely on more than just our safe and familiar traditional Christian sources of information. That is because the spirit of gambling is such a vital part of the American economy. And that is because much of the American economy is based on a hyper individualism that teaches us to care about ourselves to the extent that it causes us to lose sight of how that affects the welfare of our neighbor. 

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

April 25

To Heidelblog and Stella Morabito for the part of Morabito's article quoted in a Heidelblog post that claims that Woke is 'Anti-thought.'

Stella Morabito's full article can be found at:

https://humanevents.com/2023/04/02/stella-morabito-the-true-definition-of-woke-is-anti-thought

After reading Morabito's full article, one has to give her credit for having an active imagination. But there are some downsides to her analysis. For example, she writes as if being woke will usher in a George Orwell 1984 oligarchic socialism. She starts by describing woke as being monolithic. She then proceeds to make it a scapegoat for much that has gone wrong. And that progression from describing a personally unwanted entity as being monolithic to making it a scapegoat has many historical precedents. However,  she shows signs of projecting onto woke what she is doing herself: writing a polemic piece that would totally discredit and isolate those with whom she disagrees.

According to Morabito, the hub on which wokeness operates is in 'the intolerance of free speech' with the goal of socially isolating people. That causes people to accept what woke says without thinking.  

One would think that with that initial description, Morabito would include the likes of Ron DeSantis who is using his political powers to take revenge on Disney and who is trying to ban all materials, and even mentioning of, CRT and the LGBT community in Florida schools. Isn't what DeSantis is doing meeting the definition of intolerance. But she doesn't include him. 

She could have included Trump who had employed a similar ban but to a lesser degree for those businesses that have federal contracts and publicly tried to discredit almost everyone of his critics with harsh impromptu accusations. But she didn't include him either. 

Or she could have included those who group together to not just ban books on racism from a CRT perspective and about those from the LGBT community, they have worked to ban classic works by highly regarded authors, including George Orwell from public or school libraries. But she didn't include them either.

In her description of the evolution of woke, she can now only see those who promote CRT or those in the LGBT community as being woke along with those who are part of the cancel culture.  She later includes everyone who is pushing what she perceives, wrongly in terms of her border and gun confiscation claims, is Biden's agenda into this woke group. And, according to Morabito, what woke has become is a monolithic community that, with the help of corporate sponsors, plans to bring an Orwell 1984 type totalitarianism to America. 

She then proceeds to tells us the right way to think about race. That we should become colorblind like Martin Luther King Jr. The problem there is that King was not the only one who promoted colorblindness, the Reagan Administration did too. However, King's colorblindness is lightyears away from the Reagan Adminstration's version. One only needs to compare the two to see the differences. One can listen to Xander Vanocur's interview with Martin Luther King Jr. and then compare that with Kimberlé Crenshaw's views on measuring equality based on outcomes. Then one should be able to see the continuity between what King advocated for and what CRT teaches. Don't trust me on this point, listen to the interview (see  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xsbt3a7K-8  ) and read Crenshaw for yourself (see  https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Crenshaw-Race-Reform-and-Retrenchment-pdf.pdf   ).

So it is no surprise that she accuses woke of demonizing dissenters when she herself, by describing woke as an evil monolith, is doing the same thing. And in doing so, she is following in the footsteps of DeSantis with his war against Disney and his cancel culture politics on CRT and LGBT literature in the Florida schools and Trump and his war against all dissenters and who called the MSM the 'enemy of the people.' Do such people think that making accusation after accusation will divert people's attention away from their own actions? I guess those who supported the Jan 6 Insurrection hope so.

Anotherpoint can be made by quoting Morabito's own article:

'As I've written before at the Federalist, we've exhausted all political labels today, including conservative/liberal, leftist/right-wing, Democrat/Republican, and so on and so forth. There are now only two political camps: pro-thought and anti-thought. And "woke" is literally anti-thought.'

For if we take Morabito's word as truth, we never will have to listen to or read anything that those who are woke say. And certainly refusing to even listen or read is a core part of employing a no-thought approach to considering what a group says.

Finally, it isn't that Morabito has no legitimate gripe. After all what she is really complaining about isn't a given ideology or movement; she is complaining about authoritarianism. But authoritarianism has crept its way into every ideological side. And that should be evident when Morabito and those she aligns herself with those practice what she preaches against in some who are woke. It is just that not everyone who can significantly agree with CRT, or supports full equality for the LGBT community, or who is conscious about the environment, or who wants stronger gun regulations are authoritarians just as not everyone who is conservative is either. But here we should note that authoritarianism isn't the only factor that causes some of practices and attitudes that she complains about. And so the world is more complicated than Morabito gives it credit for.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 19, 2023

April 14

To Heidelblog and Matthew Adams for the part of Adams's article that is quoted in the Heidelblog post. Adams's article supports the current PCA Overture 17 that bars those men who identify themselves by their ongoing struggle with homosexual desires from serving as officers in PCA churches.

Matthew Adams's full article on the subject can be found at:

    https://mdadams.substack.com/p/the-reality-and-hope-of-sanctification

Perhaps the Catechisms need to be revised. Sanctification is talked of as being a finished work and an ongoing work in the Scriptures. The same goes with our dying to sin.

Overture 17, IMO, is a homophobic reaction to Christians who are struggling with sinful desires by Christians who believe that a significant part of their struggle with sin should have been finished. And that is seen by the reaction of how one identifies oneself. 

If we only have one identity, Overture 17 would have a point. But we don't. We are a new person in Christ. But like Paul in Romans 7 and James in James 3 we continue to struggle with sin. We should ask this: At what point do we no longer identify as the tax collector from the parable of the 2 men praying? For at the point we no longer identify with the tax collector, we then, fitting his profile, start to identify with the Pharisee. Romans 2 and James 2 warns us about judging others because we are either guilty of the same sins (Romans 2) or of different sins (James 2). The latter is why James tells us that mercy trumps judgment.

It's not that people supporting Overture 17 claim to be sinless. But unless those men who support it can say that they no longer have to battle their own sinful desires, such as heterosexual sinful desires, to single out those whose battle is with homosexual desires as being below them is to discriminate against those with homosexual sinful desires--btw, we who struggle with heterosexual sinful desires identity ourselves  as normal. And why would they discriminate except that they see those who have homosexual desires but are successfully controlling them as threat to the Church and perhaps to themselves. And if the threat is unwarranted in enough cases, then to react to all cases of men battling homosexual desires in the same way fits the description of a phobia.

We have many identities, not just one. And not one identity sums up any of us though we have one identity that is most important and critical. But that most important can critical identity doesn't eliminate our other identities. That most important and critical identity seeks, throughout our life time, to make the other identities subservient to it, as it should.

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

April 18

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the part of Trueman's article, quoted by the linked to Heidelblog post, that called those who tried to stop Judge Duncan from speaking at Stanford a 'mob.' While Trueman blamed the reaction on Post Modernism's effects on those at Stanford and said that they didn't recognize Judge Duncan's humanity, Trueman ignored a lot of history in making his assessment. 

Carl Trueman's full article can be found at:

    https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/03/a-tale-of-two-student-protests

I don't think that Trueman's analysis of the two protests is accurate enough. Sure, it is easy to respond in kind to unjustified cancel culture protests that are designed to shut down someone's speech. And by answering in kind, I mean that one can be dismissive and insulting. But such an analysis focuses intently on the actions of the protesters and superficially on the reasons why they protested the way they did.

History might show us some reasons for why some from Stanford protested the way they did. The history of the LGTB community, not just its history in America but in its history in all of Western Civilization, contains nothing less than the way those at Stanford protested Duncan. No one beat Duncan, fired him from his job, forced him to be chemically castrated, incarcerated him, or murdered him for his attempts to speak at Stanford. And yet, for centuries that has been the history of the LGBT community in America and Western Civilization until lately. 

Do we understand how that history might come into play in the protest by those at Stanford? Do we understand that when long-standing social injustices are addressed, the corrections can sometimes become overreactions and even mimic a phobic reaction to anyone who seems to sympathize with those who practiced those injustices. Here, we might ask Trueman how those in the LGBT community were being recognized as being human by those from the past who have persecuted the LGBT community. 

We could also ask Trueman how Judge Duncan's professional past recognizes the LGBT community when he has worked to deny them equality in society (see  https://legacy.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/legal-docs/downloads/39_lgbt_groups_oppose_confirmation_of_stuart_kyle_duncan-1.pdf   ). Instances of how Judge Duncan worked to deny the LGBT community equality in society include defending Alabama's attempt to take away parental rights from a lesbian mother over her adopted child and filing a brief that opposed marriage equality (see  https://www.vox.com/2020/1/17/21067634/trump-judge-transgender-cruel-kyle-duncan-united-states-varner  ).  From this information, can we see why Trueman was afforded more respect at his speaking engagement than Judge Duncan?

And if Trueman claims that the "mob" failed to see the humanity of Judge Duncan and thus 'othered' him, as evidenced by their rude behavior toward him, how would Trueman interpret Luther's anti-Semitism, Calvin's persecution of heretics and witches, the Puritans'  treatment of Quakers, Jonathan Edwards's support for slavery, and J. Gresham Machen's racial prejudice? Would Trueman group those from Church history who 'othered' their targets with the Stanford "mob" who 'othered'  Judge Duncan? 

Certainly how those at Stanford who mistreated Judge Duncan have no justification for their actions. But no justification for actions should never be confused with denying that actions can be understandable. And what makes the inappropriate reactions to Judge Duncan's attempts to speak at Stanford understandable here is history--both that of the LGBT community and Judge Duncan's professional career. And we can't afford to minimize or dismiss the effects that that history has without implying that those in the LGBT community deserved the injustices they suffered in the past. 

If we really want to understand those who inappropriately protested Duncan's presence, we will look at those protests in the light of history before making any analysis. Trueman did not seem to adequately take history into account here.

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 29, 2023

 March 22

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the portion of Trueman's article which was quoted in the Heidelblog post and dealt with preachers preaching on controversial political issues. 

Carl Trueman's full article can be found at:

    https://modernreformation.org/resource-library/web-exclusive-articles/the-mod-faithful-preaching-in-a-fashionable-world/

In the article cited above, Trueman offers 3 solutions for handling controversial political subjects from the pulpit. We should note that it seems that the controversial subjects that Trueman had in his mind regarded sex and LGBT issues. They are:

1.   The job of pastors, and indeed all Christians, is not to be popular.

2.   '<b>Preachers must preach the 'whole counsel of God</b>'

3.   Christians must realize that the Church is the Bride of Christ, not any other kind of group.

Certainly those 3 suggestions are very Biblical and any Christian should be hard pressed to object to any of those solutions.

But there is a 4th solution too. That is that because preachers must preach on political topics because many political topics involve moral issues. And so, preachers must distinguish between speaking morally from speaking politically. For example, certainly homosexuality is sin. But the solution to addressing homosexuality in our society is to call homosexuals to repentance rather than seeking to marginalize homosexuals or even criminalize homosexuality. 

However, we should note that other political issues that contain moral issues such as income and wealth disparity, climate change, health care, militarization and war might require that we publicly oppose the current political decisions rather than merely opposing individual personal decisions. In that case, preachers and all Christians should speak out against political policies while refraining from unnecessarily endorsing publicly stated political proposals.

Here the ability of the Church and our ability as Christians to distinguish between those issues that only require us to speak to individuals from those issues that call us to speak publicly to political policies are important.

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

To Heidelblog and Nancy Guthrie and the part of her article about the Book of Revelation which talks about our worship of the triune God as being the ultimate subversive activity in today's world.

Nancy Guthrie's full article can be found at:

https://corechristianity.com/resource-library/articles/4-reasons-we-avoid-the-book-of-revelation/

But our prayers and worship can bring harm to the reputation of the Gospel when we mistreat others. And we all have done that, and will continue to have, examples of mistreating others. But we should also note that that is true of the Church as an institution too.

One way we can learn about how the Church has mistreated others is to listen to our critics. And here, I am particularly thinking of Critical Theory and Post Modernism. For they are, in part, reactions to the failure of the Church in how it has acted as an institution. Neither Critical Theory nor Post Modernism have the answers as to what the Church can do now.  But both are providing important feedback regarding some of where we have failed in carrying out the Great Commission.

Another way we can learn about how the Church has mistreated others is to observe how it might be seeking to treat other unjustly today. For example, why is religiously conservative American Christianity seeking to move the LGBT community back to the margins? Why does a good portion of religiously conservative American Christianity so ignore the injustices done to the Palestinians by its hero hero Israel? Why does a good portion of religiously conservative American Christianity oppose a political party that seeks to reduce social safety nets which would put many Americans at risk?

Here we should note that the article cited is about understanding the Book of Revelation. And yet, the part of Guthrie's article cited asks what could be more important than to talk about corporate worship. And yet, Jesus told us that there are prerequisites to worshiping God. And so even if we don't always make amends for all of our past sins, we need to be on the watch for current injustices that we the Church might be participating in today as being a part of our preparation for our worship of God.

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

March 28

To Marc Barnes and his article that claims that what we are seeing today is not a post Christianity, but a hyper-Christianity so that the Christian influences on the nation are not recognized. This hyper-Christianity is the product of the 'material heresy of liberalism.'

The above article is the result of an apologetic panic that many Christians find themselves in. That panic causes them to try too hard to either say  too much in favor of Christianity or against everything outside of Christianity. For the most part, the above article is about the former.

Church history by itself adequately challenges the above article. Even recent Church history shows that Christianity has at least a mixed record on the principles valued above. At the same time, what goes unrecognized is that the person who penned the Declaration of Independence was not a Christian if what is required by the Christian faith was a belief in the supernatural and that Jesus was both God and man. Jefferson's account of the Gospels leaves out the supernatural side of Jesus.

From there, all we have to do is to look at the religious infighting in the Roman and Protestant branches of the Church to see that Christianity, as represented by Christians, has a very difficult time accepting the notion that all people are created equal. From the Church's support of imperialism, colonialism, white supremacy, ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land, slavery, Jim Crow, and those with wealth and power, Christianity has not taught that all people are equal. Even by example, Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence p are contradicted by his other words and his actions.

What we see today is not a hyperChristianity, that is unless one equates that with the reactionary forces that see wokism as a mortal enemy. Rather, what we are seeing is many religiously conservative Christians both claiming too much for their faith and not recognizing the valid thinking of unbelievers while fighting tooth and nail for control of society and the culture. Seeking to control others  is antithetical  to believing in and promoting equality.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 22, 2023

 March 16

To Heidelblog and Kyle Borg for the part of Borg's article quoted in the Heidelblog post. Borg's article was referring to the the story from Band of Brothers where U.S. troops slaughtered hundreds of innocent civilians in the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War.

Kyle Borg's full article can be found at:

   https://gentlereformation.com/2023/02/17/band-of-brothers/

What Kyle Borg described is commonly known as tribalism. And with tribalism comes a relative morality where what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom (a.k.a., partiality). Tribalism occurs where there is a high degree of loyalty to a group.  And tribalism can occur in any kind of group.

For Christians, tribalism occurs when we put what the group revolves around on too high a pedestal in our own lives. And the article quoted from above does a good job describing when tribalism can occur in Christian work and how to prevent tribalism from occurring when one is in a group.

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

March 17

To Heidelblog and Ryan Biese for the part of Biese's article that talks about the need to show patience with some in the PCA who are not following the Book of Church Order in some areas.

Ryan Biese's full article can be found at 

https://rfbwcf.substack.com/p/a-plea-for-patience-in-the-pca-1

Patience is a two-way street here. Patience must also be shown with those who are either unable or refuse to distinguish those parts of the Standards that can be disagreed with and those parts that cannot. And the Book of Church Order must be revised in order to show where those disagreements should be allowed. Also some other parts of the Book of Church Order need to be changed to fit the Scriptures. An article from TGC shows that be dogmatic about women being deacons is not the way to go (see  https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/bible-support-female-deacons-yes  ).

Patience must also be shown with those who are either unable or refuse to change because changing from past traditional interpretations of the scriptures can be threatening. There's the fear that diverting from how past Christian leaders interpret the Scriptures in one text can eventually lead separating oneself from those leaders who have provided our traditional understandings. Plus, change is one of the most difficult tasks we can undertake. Those who try to live a life of continual repentance from sins should know this. And thus trying to change interpretations of the Scriptures, though not necessarily sinful, should be understood as being very difficult as well.

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

March 20

To Thomas Koenig and his article on how the Federal government should be concerned with the nation's economics while letting local communities determine how it should respond to culture war issues. This article was posted on the Imaginative Conservative website.

Since the cultures wars involved equality and human rights, leaving culture war decisions to local communities seems to be another defense of the states rights argument that occurred during the days of slavery in America. The South wanted to legally regard treat Blacks as property rather than people. And one reason for treatment of Blacks as property was because it was good for the South's economy--though not all shared in that goodness, such as those who were slaves. The abolitionists, though many of them also believed in white supremacy, simply wanted slavery to end. 

Here we should remember that the core of the culture wars is about equality and human rights. And America has a history of leaving questions regarding equality and human rights up to the local communities. Prior to U.S. becoming a nation, local communities could persecute people of different religions, or Christian denominations to be precise, as was the case when the Puritans of New England persecuted and even martyred Quakers who insisted on being there.  And after Reconstruction, we had Jim Crow laws throughout much of the South where local communities decided on what rights that whites could enjoy but blacks could not. 

So now, in a multiracial nation, which Koenig acknowledges, do we want the recognition of  human rights to be determined at the local level? Or is this article more concerned with how we should treat those in the LGBT community.

Finally, what is ironic here is that on a Christian website, an article that singles out the factor that should most unite the nation is economics rather than morals that guide how we should treat each other. Perhaps we should replace the word 'ironic' with 'tragic.'