Should History Be Just A Drug

 Laura Ingraham used to preach to artists: ˋShut Up and Sing.ˋ With her message, Ingraham either did not know or ignored the difference between artists and entertainers. For while all artists are entertainers, not all entertainers are artists. What is the difference between the two? Artists use either their platform or art to act as secular prophets to society on almost any issue. And their job as prophets is to make society feel uncomfortable with its significant faults. Entertainers sing just to make us feel good.

I mention this because Marco Rubio came close to, if not actually, taking a page out of Ingrahamˋs message. He said the following at the Munich Security Conference this month (click here for the source):

We want allies who can defend themselves so that no adversary will ever be tempted to test our collective strength.  This is why we do not want our allies to be shackled by guilt and shame.  We want allies who are proud of their culture and of their heritage, who understand that we are heirs to the same great and noble civilization, and who, together with us, are willing and able to defend it. 

At first, such a wish seems reasonable. And it would be reasonable until we see how Trump deals with pride and guilt at home. For Trumpˋs war against Wokeism and DEI shows that Trump does not want to be reminded of any negative criticisms based on the past or present. In other words, he doesnˋt want to hear any prophetic messages despite his penchant foror speaking prophtically, that is in his mind, to others.

What we end up with here is the kind of thinking that serves as the cognitive foundation for authoritarianism: all or nothing thinking. For, based on Trumpˋs domestic policies and Rubioˋs above statement, it seems that Trump wants his Western allies to be proud (and loud) as he is as opposed to feeling guilty over the past and perhaps the present too.

Even MAGA Christians, along with the rest of us believers in Christ, must tell Trump that we, as Christians, cannot go with him there. Why? Perhaps the parable of the two men praying explains why (see Luke 18:9-14):

9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

This parable applies because it gives birth to two questions that we believers in Christ must always ask ourselves. First, when is it safe for any Christian to pray the prayer of the Pharisee? Second, when does any Christian no longer need to pray the prayer of the tax collector?

As for all of us in society, we have go back to the logical issue here, Why must we choose between being proud or feeling guilt and shame over the past? Why canˋt we, as people, experience both sets of feelings? Why must we choose between one or the other?

If we realize that Trump views America as an extension of himself. And considering that Trumpˋs Administration has criticized Great Britain for its own Wokeism as well as the hate speech laws that many European nations have, Trump, through Rubio, seems to be demanding that his European allies br likr how he wants America to be.

There are other reasons for continuing to feel guilt and shame over the past. One reason is that those feelings not only reminds us of what our ancestors did, it also reminds us of what we are capable of repeating. We Christians should note that Daniel confessed that his generation of Israelites committed many of the same sins that their ancestors did. 

That reminder should not only help humble us, but it can be a useful tool in exercising self-restraint. And so without that shame and guilt, Europe could, once again, repeat its past mistakes as well as committing Americaˋs current great sin of rationalizing its dependence on the rule of force on the grounds of its exceptionalism.

And now, what becomes of history if we forget the shame and guilt for our past atrocities? Why isnˋt it true that if we can share in the pride of past heroes with their accomplishments, then we can also share in their shame due to their past atrocities? If we canˋt share in that shame, then history becomes nothing a feel good drug designed to help us bury our self--doubts and criticisms, which ia much like entertainment provided by even our favorite entertainers does. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 18, 2017

Jan 3

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost on some of what Queen Elizabeth said. The part focused on here is where Pearce states that Queen Elizabeth is advocating subsidiarity. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

The writer of this article grossly misinterprets the Queen in a certain area. For the Queen said:

But even with the inspiration of others, it’s understandable that we sometimes think the world’s problems are so big that we can do little to help. On our own, we cannot end wars or wipe out injustice, but the cumulative impact of thousands of small acts of goodness can be bigger than we imagine.

Pearce interprets her as saying the following:

Can we really believe that the head of state of one of the most powerful countries in the world is extolling the principle of subsidiarity—the principle that individuals, families, local communities, charities and churches can change society for the better whereas big and burdensome governments tend to make the big problems even bigger?

What Pearce's interpretation misses is the key phrase 'On our own.' Because of that phrase, Pearce's exclusive-or interpretation of saying that either big gov't saves the vulnerable or local groups of people help the vulnerable but not both presents a false dichotomy. In addition, to exclude gov't from helping people is to say that gov't can only represent those people who can help themselves. And such leaves the vulnerable wholly dependent on the benevolence and access to resources that those around them have.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Carl Trueman who complained that we are intolerant of the wrong things. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Intolerance should not just be determined by the tenets and behaviors we are objecting to, but by the context in which these beliefs and behaviors exist as well. It is one thing to be intolerant of heresy or immoral sexual behavior in the Church, but should we be intolerant of it in society as well?

Right now we have battle lines being drawn between post Modernists and authoritarian traditionalists with both have something significant contribute to the other, but with neither one of them listening because they they think know enough already. It is wrong for either of these groups to be intolerant of others in society. Why? Because society is not the Church, it includes both those who belong to the Church and those who don't. And while some in the Church are upset because they feel that they are being marginalized by society's acceptance of different sexual orientations and identities, the truth is that the Church, for centuries, has had society marginalize those who practice certain sexual sins and it has done so with all of the personal traits of the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 4

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Paul Helm that questions whether there is a right side of history? This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Let's approach this subject on a case by case basis. Were those who opposed slavery in America on the right side of history or if there is no right side of history, are they to be placed next to those who supported slavery as if there is no difference between them?

Seems to me that the right side of history is the side that does not invoke shame for one's position. And it also seems that we should not let the fact that the right side can be wrongly identified be used to deny the existence of the right side of history.

As for comparing the Enlightenment with Medieval times, there is no reason why we can't compare those two times on a trait by trait basis so that both get a mixed report even though side might be more preferable to the other. Otherwise, we have only shown ourselves to have a fear of having a preferred time period being examined more closely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 17

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost asking whether Trump will be a nationalist or an imperialist. The article describes in binary terms nationalism on one hand and imperialism/internationalism/globalism on the other hand. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The use of terms 'nationalism' and 'imperialism' is understandable but inadequate. For while one dictionary definition of nationalism allows a nation to pursue imperialism while the other definition merely advocates for self-rule. Likewise, internationalism or globalism is not the same as imperialism. Internationalism or globalism can refer to collaborative efforts between nations in some sphere whereas  imperialism involves controlling or conquering rather than collaboration. In addition, we need to recognize that in both nationalism and globalism, we can have either democratic rule or elite-centered rule.

Thus, we need to be clear about the terms we are using. Each nation should respect the right of the people from all other nations to exercise self-rule. But such does not eliminate internationalism. Because some of what a nation does can impact other nations, there is an international accountability. In addition, certain moral values must not be violated in how a nation treats subsets of its population or there must be international accountability.

But something else must be said about either self-rule and collaborative efforts. They can be based on democratic principles where all people are involved in the decision making processes or they can be elite-centered. For example, the US is now considered by some to be an oligarchy (see  http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746  ). Thus, regardless of the national interests Trump pursues, because we are a nation that suffers from elite-centered rule, his pursuits will not result in self-rule.

An example of elite-centered rule from an internationalist perspective could be seen in Obama's efforts to fast-track the TPP. His efforts simply removed democratic principles from the decision making process. In addition, the result of the TPP would be to give foreign investors power and control over each member nation in that corporations could sue governments over laws that were democratically passed if such laws cost the corporations profits while these same corporations were not accountable to the governments. But when talking about internationalism, are we going classify the ICC or the UN with their internationalism in the same category as trade agreements such as the TPP or the EU?

The problem we have in describing the world around us is that we tend to use binary thinking. During the Cold War, we had the Free World vs Communism. However, there were many things practiced by some in the Free World that resembled the pejorative stereotype we assigned to Communism. And there were democratic efforts made by Socialists that were not duly recognized and thus distinguished from Lenin-Stalin Communism by the Free World. So we should see that this model of nationalism vs imperialism where the former neglects to distinguish between democratic rule and elite-centered rule while the latter fails to distinguish imperialism from internationalism and the different types of globalism is flawed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Art Carden and his blogpost about Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand. In that article, Carden describes the conflict as being the invisible hand o the market vs fist of the state. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There are two problems with this article. First, the binary understanding of the conflict that exists regarding markets. That conflict being the invisible hand of the market vs the fist of the state. The second problem is tendency for some to misunderstand what Smith said.

According to this article, it seems that the invisible hand of the market represents the freedom of all people while the fist of the state represents alien tyrants. The history of labor struggles in the US strongly contradicts that perception. For we should note that representation in the free market is not based by the individual but by the dollar or whatever currency is involved. Those with the most dollars have the most say while those with the least wealth are barely heard. And in a society where things are valued more than people, the public interest is not necessarily served by those who have the greatest say over what happens in the market. Again, the history of American labor struggles bares this out. We might also want include the history of offshoring jobs as well.
interest.

In addition, what if the state is working democracy, how can its decisions that limit the free market be described as the fist of an alien tyrant? Rather such a government is putting limits on a market that is anything but democratic.

Second, Smith did not speak of the invisible hand of the market by observation alone, but by some speculation. His description of the invisible hand came from arguing against mercantilism and the influence that those with wealth had over government officials. So did eliminating mercantilism also eliminate the influence that those with wealth have over government officials.

In addition, the line from the article that says:

This is where the invisible hand of the market comes in. Voluntary market exchange reveals the patterns of specialization, division of labor, and production most consistent with consumers’ preferences. Others’ talents, tastes, values, and knowledge constitute the invisible hand. I convey information about my own talents, tastes, values, and knowledge with offers to buy or sell. Others convey their knowledge by their willingness to accept my bids and offers. I am being led by the invisible hand of others’ knowledge toward patterns of specialization and production that leave us most satisfied, given that we are all free to accept or reject any offer.

does not entirely represent Smith's sentiments. The following is what Smith also wrote about the division of labor (see http://www.gradesaver.com/the-wealth-of-nations/study-guide/quotes as it quotes Smith):

In the progress of the division of labor, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labor, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations; frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects, too, are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention, in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life.

It seems that those who use Smith to promote free markets, do so selectively.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on 5 facts about Martin Luther King Jr. This appeared in the Acton blog.

But there is one other fact about Martin Luther King if we are to truly honor him. That fact was that opposing racism was not his only core concern. He also opposed materialism and economic exploitation as well as war and militarism. In fact, he saw the three of them, that is racism, materialism/economic exploitation, and war/militarism as being inseparable and incapable of being defeated for as long as our society cared about gadgets, profits, and property rights more than it was concerned about people (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm as just one of several references that support what was just written about King).

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 8, 2016

May 18

To Peter Rieth and his blogpost whether Christians could vote for Trump and how he is a reflection of the failure of American Democracy. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

This article has good and bad points. But in the end, it isn't just the elites who are to blame, it is we the people as well. Because we have believed in our own greatness and regard ourselves as being exceptional, the idea that we could fail democracy flew in under our radar. And because we are content with Capitalism's material benefits, we are too apathetic to challenge the elites as has been done in the past.

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

May 20

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on who can teach Sunday School. The question at hand is whether women and other laity are allowed to teach according to the Scriptures. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Personally, I think the regulative principle sends us on some wild goose chases for principles that we can use to cover ourselves. Who can teach Sunday School is a case in point. Since we have no firm examples of women teaching, we make a general rule for Sunday School despite the possibility that women could have had teaching positions (Aquila and Phoebe). The endless search for principles for some of more and more decisions increases the authoritarianism that runs rampant in Conservative Churches. And here I would like to distinguish between submitting to proper authority structures and authoritarianism. The latter consists of the former on steroids. With the proper submission to authority structures, there is a recognition of the responsibilities of those over us. With authoritarianism, the truth of what is said depends too much on the credentials of the source. Of course, it is one thing to submit to teaching because of what Jesus or the Apostles said, but they provide special cases. It is another thing when we do the same with the Westminster Divines or Calvin or any other authority figure in the Church. With authoritarianism, the laity tries to prove its spirituality cred by how well they know and submit to later figures like the Westminster Divines and Calvin and how they show disdain for fellow Christians who have different views from what is accepted in one's group. It also causes people in the Church to be too insular in the sources they use for understanding the world around them.

What we need to understand is that too much emphasis on authority, or authoritarianism, makes for passive learners in the Church pews. And as these passive learners lose the ability to think through what is taught, they also lose the ability to think through what is going on in the world around them. And that suits some who have authority in the Church fine because that makes people more dependent on them and it maintains group think. The sad result is that we lose the ability to reach out to groups of people who are different from us in ideology, personality type, and social groups. To show this, we might take a survey of members of conservative Reformed churches to see how many are voting for other than a politically conservative candidate. If America has a bias against authority, history suggests that it is because too many authority figures have abused their position causing great harm to those under them.

And all of this quest for authority, both by those who want to hold authority and those who want to sit under it is due to the regulative principle and how it sometimes causes us to act like the Pharisees when Jesus was incarnate on earth. And though the topic of the above article is on who can teach Sunday School, the method of answering the question shows the sometimes over reliance on the regulative principle.

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

May 26

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote stating that the new actions by the government to recognize rights of the LGBTQ community will lead to the abolishment of our gender classification and to the state’s ability to consolidate more power. This appeared in Heidelblog while the quote came from an article in the Witherspoon Institute website.

The above quote is taken from the series The Sky Is Falling Because Society's Mores Are Changing. The lines from the article from which the above quote is taken says the following:

It will serve to outlaw speech that identifies males as males and females as females. At the moment, it may not seem that way, since we see people striving to pass as one specific sex or the other. But, trust me, we’re all being forced to “transition” into conformity of thought.

The only substantiation for the claim is a New York City Human Rights Law that deals with some sort of official communication with those who are transgendered and a new federal form that replaces mother and father with parent 1 and 2. And both the law and the form are there to recognize the rights and existence of a group that many of us religiously conservative Christians have always had disdain for: the LGBTQ community. However, we are still to trust the opinion of this writer that the state will require that we will not only be forced to ignore gender reality of others, that the recognition of our own gender will be lost as well.

All of this is because the government is trying to further the recognition of the civil rights of those from the LGBTQ community. And this community is a very small percentage of the population. 

Of course, according to the author, the recognition of civil rights raises the red flags of a coming tyranny when she writes at the very beginning of her article:

As usual, tyranny comes disguised as “civil rights.”

Here we might ask this question: How much tyranny has resulted from the recognition of civil rights? We might also ask for the identity of those groups where the recognition of their civil rights has resulted in tyranny.

I think that the title for the blogpost on Heidelblog is correct. It is about control. But it isn't about the control sought by the state or others; it is about the control lost by us from the conservative Christian community and how we cry that the sky is falling because of that lost control. And if you don't believe me about whether this is about a loss of our control over society's mores, consider the recent past and how we have battled against issues like same-sex marriage or by how some of us have pushed for Jim Crow like laws allowing Christian businesses to discriminate against the LGBTQ community. Or look at the 29 states that allow employers to dismiss employees from their jobs because of their sexual orientation. It is such tyranny for some of us when we lose the right to discriminate against a group that many of us wished were invisible. Wasn't the invisibility of the LGBTQ community the reason why our past laws and some of the present ones were written? 

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

May 30

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on distinguishing between patriotism and the pulpit. In this blogpost, he made claims about America being exceptional in terms of the freedoms it promoted for its own people and others. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

I understand the sentiment expressed here because I use to think that way about our nation; but history prohibits this kind of thinking.  Our entry into WW I was to save our banks that had lent money to the nations that were losing and to help arms makers and other industries that grow rich from war. Smedley Butler wrote about how our entry into conflicts was more due to helping the rich with their foreign holdings than for any ideals (see http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html  and http://fas.org/man/smedley.htm ). And well before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Helen Keller warned us that our imperial possessions in the Pacific would be a cause for war with Japan (see https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/keller-helen/works/1910s/16_01_05.htm )

We need to note that the Korean War was a war between two dictatorships where both sought to silence political opponents inside their ownnations for the same reason: to unite the two Koreas under their control.  Yes, the North invaded and we had sided with the South. But look at whom we had sided with. And note how after expelling the North Korean from the South, we then invaded North Korea and that invited the Chinese entry into the war. And it wasn't until over 30 years later that South Korea would experience any kind of free political system.

Or we could talk about Vietnam with our rejection of the Geneva Accords and its call for the reunification of Vietnam to be determined democratically. In fact, we had made an agreement with France during WW II where we promised to help them recolonize Vietnam. And when they were unable to accomplish that, we supported dictator after dictator and finally we invaded the nation. As a result of our invasion and bombings, not only did we kill millions of Vietnamese civilians, we destabilized Cambodia as we extended the bombings there and drove some there to support the murderous Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge regime. We should also note that in fighting against North Vietnam, we were turning our backs on a WW II ally: Ho Chi Minh. The Vietnam War was about us preventing North and South Vietnam from reuniting. They were divided as a way to root out the Japanese toward the end and after the war. And we never let the South Vietnamese vote on whether they should reunite with the North Vietnam.

Or we could talk about how we supported Batista's dictatorship in Cuba or that of Somoza's in Nicaragua only to support or conduct terrorist wars on those nations after their respective revolutions that followed those dictatorships. And we could also talk about how we trained military and paramilitary troops on how to attack liberation theologians in Central American countries. 

In short, without counting what we did prior to WW II, we have intervened in over 50 nations since the end of WW II with over 30 of those nations being democracies or carrying out democratic processes and in an overwhelming number of those latter cases, we replaced democracy with totalitarian rule. And what was our justification in doing all of that? Our justification revolved around who we weren't rather than who we were.

In other areas of the world, we supported the Shah in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We supported Osama Bin Laden and his terrorism in Afghanistan simply to draw the Soviet Union into their own Vietnam. We supported Mubarak and al-Sisi in Egypt despite their attacks on the human rights of the people there. And we still support the dictatorships of  Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and any other regime that follows orders. Remember what brought about our decision to attack Iraq during George H. W. Bush's presidency. It was Saddam's invasion of  Kuwait. Until then, we were providing Iraq with materials for WMDs even after he used them on his own people and on Iran.

And by saying that the War on Terror started on 9-11-2001, we are simply exercising a bit of narcissism by showing that we think that the world revolves around what happens us. In truth, the 9-11 atrocities were a response to the American and British led sanctions on Iraq that, along with the first Persian Gulf War, were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. In addition, we have consistently supported Israel's brutal occupation against the Palestinians where Israel constantly seeks to expand by taking Palestinian land.

And what are we doing today? We still overthrow governments. Libya is one case in point that some could argue for? But what possible justification could there be for our participation in the 2009 coup in Honduras and our support for the new government? 

And while our abuse of Blacks during the slave years and the subsequent Jim Crow years was duly noted, where was the mention of the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land?

Have there been times when our nation has acted to help some gain freedom? In a scant number of cases, that is true. In the vast overwhelming number of cases, it is false.

By claiming that our nation is exceptional, some have only shown that they are normal. For it is quite normal for people to claim that their nation is above all others in virtue. Germany has done that. So have the Swiss. And so have the French and others. Claiming to be special is normal. And failing to be special is History's verdict on each of those claims, including our own.

I like what Bobby Seale said about nationalism. He rejected it because like racism, it was based on the belief in the superiority of one's own group.  But perhaps even that is preferable to what is coming via our current form of Capitalism. With each new trade agreement and organization we join, we lose more of our voice in our "democracy" to the interests of investors.

Yes, it is good to say that the Church must have only one flag: that of the Lord Jesus. And we should honor those who gave their lives for their country. But with that honor, we must realize that sometimes the ones we are honoring are those who defended our nation from others while, at other times, we must realize that the ones we should be honoring are those who gave their lives to defend their country from us.

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

May 31

To Sarah Stanley and her blogpost citing Samuel Gregg’s work that predicts that Social Democracy would hurt the American Dream. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

There are problems with Gregg's analysis besides the failure to recognize that the proletariat dictatorship never came to fruition. For what we have in Europe is a political social democracy wedded to neoliberal capitalism and the two just have irreconcilable differences. Thus it is natural for someone who believes in today's free markets and the neoliberal capitalism it incorporates to be so gloomy about social democracy. For as one side recognizes the responsibilities that come with our current state of interdependence, the other side is in denial of both our interdependence and our responsibilities.

Greece is a prime example of how well Social Democracy goes with neoliberal capitalism. With its economic crisis having started with our economic collapse of 2008 and the corruption between moneyed-interests and its politicians, Greece found itself in economic turmoil. This resulted in a never ending spiral of an ever increasing debt and borrowing. Over 90% of the borrowing is used to pay foreign lenders and the loans are conditioned on the implementation of austerity measures that even the IMF says hurt the economy. So while the austerity measures hurts Greece's economy, Greece's economic economy fails and thus it defaults on its loans and that demands more borrowing. But, as mentioned before, the lenders receive the bulk of the new loans while nothing is done to fix Greece's structural problems that create the debt in the first place.

The key objection Gregg has to social democracy is that its basic structure of 'enveloping citizens from birth to death in a web of protections and benefits that seek to shield people from life’s uncertainties ' is not sustainable. But the alternative that is never to be named or mentioned is Social Darwinism. And with Social Darwinism eventually comes the death penalty for all who don't make it in the market economy. And even though our economic welfares are more interconnected now than ever before, the denial of our interdependence is the catalyst that transforms regulated markets into free ones. And what is left behind are those who couldn't contribute enough to those free markets while what lies in future is a new political landscape where boundaries become more and more dependent on economic lines than national borders. This is why Europe is becoming more and more governed by Brussels than by its elected governments. The growing wealth disparity in Europe gives evidence of the tension between social democracy and free markets (see http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/?p=3954 ).

Thus, the difference between Europe and us rests in a matter of years with Europe heading in our direction. Currently, our non social democracy has produced both the most wealth and the highest wealth disparity (see http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-wealth-inequality). But with that wealth disparity has come what should be a political power disparity resulting in us exchanging democracy for oligarchy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746). This would indicate that free markets not only do not work and play well with social democracy as Europe's growing wealth disparity and the list of the top 10 nations in wealth disparity shows, it indicates that free markets don't work and play well with what was American democracy either. And why Conservatives are blind to this is because they only think of power as being equal to government authority. They don't realize that power can and does consolidate where wealth consolidates.

Noting how America's free markets has also produced the world's greatest wealth disparity along with a loss of democracy, we need to ask Stanley whose American Dream could actually be harmed by a real Social Democracy? We should note that what Sanders calls Social Democracy is not Marxist, it is an updated form of FDR's New Deal. And there is no gradual transition from that to Marx's proletariat dictatorship.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on 9 facts we should know about nuclear weapons This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

There is a missing fact about nuclear weapons here. That fact is that they could destroy human life on earth.

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

June 1

To Sarah Stanley her blogpost citing Joe Carter’s article attributing Venezuela’s problems to authoritarianism. This appeared in the Acton blog

Venezuela could hardly be considered a success story prior to Chavez that is unless one wants to minimize the significance of past authoritarianism as well as corruption. Certainly the problems that Venezuela is experiencing are due to elite-centered rule; but who isn't experiencing problems from that type of governing. We are as those with wealth have so much of the ear of our elected representatives that our system now considered to be an oligarchy rather than a Democracy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ).

But with Chavez's deficiencies in how he ruled, which was discussed at NYC's Left Forum in 2015, he did experience some extraordinary resistance both from within his own nation and from without. From within his own nation there is the main organization that represents businesses: the FEDECAMERAS. This group is doing what they can to regain power in Venezuela including organizing a general strike (see https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/setting-the-record-straight-on-venezuela/ ). In addition, there is a continuance of fraud in Venezuela. We should note that fraud brought to the end one Venezuelan President in 1993.

There are also outside obstacles to the Venezuela's current government. There is evidence that the US was involved in the 2002 attempted coup to overthrow Chavez which failed because of how the people of Venezuela supported him in the streets. In addition, sanctions and accusations that Venezuela was involved in drug smuggling and terrorism as well as implied threats of attacks have been made by the US. That the US has been guilty of trying to destabilize other gov'ts that it does not like tells us that these statements about US involvement in contributing to some of Venezuela's problems should be investigated (see https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/us-aggression-against-venezuela-fact-not-fiction/ ).

Of course, some of Venezuela's problems are due to decisions made by Chavez. But he should not be scapegoated for its problems especially since some of today's problems are merely repeats of problems from the past including authoritarianism and corruption. In addition, we should note that not all of the news coming out of Venezuela is bad. There have been advances made in terms of education, healthcare, and housing (see https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/venezuelas-crisis-from-up-close/ ).

We should note that the the economic system favored by Carter, who was referenced by the writer of the blogpost,  exhibits just as much authoritarianism as what could be attributed to Chavez. It seems that some conservatives can only see problems with authoritarianism in governments, especially those they don't favor. They have trouble seeing authoritarianism being displayed in and from the private sector.

In the end, most systems fail when at least one of its significant players insist on not sharing power and decision making with other groups. And unless we learn how to cooperate better, the system we live in will eventually collapse.

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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on what are the true marks of the Church. The question came to mind when some visitors to some Reformed churches found the people there to be cold. This appeared in Heidelblog.

There is a disconnect here. The disconnect is that the Church is made up of believers, but, according to the Belgic Confession, the marks of the True Church is determined by the practices of a very small subset of those believers called elders in Presbyterian terms. In the meantime, the marks of the believer are faith, sanctification, and love. So when visitors complain that they did not experience a congregation to be warm and loving, as long as the elders do their job, then those visitors came to a true church though the church is made up of believers.

It isn't that our confessions have nothing to contribute. To believe that would be to err on the side of narcissism in that one believes that the truths and values held to from one's own time are so superior that there is no need to learn from the past.

But on the other hand, the reluctance to criticize the Church's confessions and standards is a kind of authoritarianism that has its parallels to narcissism only it reverses the paradigm. It says that the truths and values held to from the past are so superior to that which are held to today that those from the past having nothing to learn from those living today. This makes authoritarianism and narcissism different sides of the same coin.

The problem here is when the confessions and standards from the past fail to emphasize the same truths and values of what the Scriptures emphasize such as in Galatians 5:6:

For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love

Here, I believe that the Belgic Confession regarding the true marks of the Church is neither not without merit nor is it without need for criticism and revision.

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

June 2

To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost quote stating how the horror of abortion is still with us. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

It's not the bureaucrats' fault, it is the law. The impetus to change the law will never come about for as long as the pro-life cause is so closely tied to conservative politics. Why? It is because there is too much support for patriotism and capitalism in conservative politics to realize how what is being supported is not pro-life for those who have been born. Somehow, pro-lifers are going to have to reach out to political nonconservatives in order to enlarge their tent before the law will be changed.

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

To Bradley Birzer and his blogpost about mistakes made by the founding fathers. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

We can't fully understand The Constitution when we place it and its writers on the pedestal that many do. And we usually place them on such pedestals when we decontextualize the document and the actions and words of the writers. That decontextualization revolves around forgetting the economic class to which most of the writers belonged as well as the events that gave impetus to the writing of the document. The reason for the writing of the document had more to do with empowering a weak confederation in order that it could better respond to dissent and insurrection like what occurred with Shays Rebellion.

In fact, noting Shays Rebellion and reviewing the 2nd Amendment. we only need to note that that Amendment talked about the right to bear arms in the context of the need to have a militia. And when one looks up the Constitutional references regarding the militia, we find that Congress is to provide the necessary funds for arming and training the militia while the militia itself was under the command of the President and its existence was to repel invasions and put down insurrections. Though here Yates' notes on the Constitutional Debates are subject to debate so that the validity of Madison's quote regarding the job of the government is to 'protect the minority of the opulent against the majority' is in doubt, doesn't Madison say in one of his own writings something to the effect that power belongs to those with wealth who have proved themselves? Such would, to a degree, confirm that the statement in question fits in with Madison's thought.

Yes, Birzer's article here is about the mistakes of the founders. And yet, even with those mistakes, both The Constitution and its writers are still placed on a pedestal too high to be supported by history.

Now aside from his harsh and unjustified judgment of FDR, Birzer has some concerns that people should share. But the concept of limited government does not always fit with the concept of the government protecting people from their enemies. For government to provide such protection, it needs to be bigger than those enemies whether those enemies are foreign or domestic. Considering that on this blog, there has been a growing recognition of the threat that some private sector elites pose to the American people, government should not necessarily be judged by size. That is because government is like love, size doesn't matter, fidelity does. And it is up to us, the people, to ensure that government is faithful to all of us, not just to those with wealth.

A concern that Birzer has that I fully share regards the general ethics and moral values of the people. For there is no political and/or economic system devised that can succeed regardless of the moral code followed by the people. The problem becomes determining what set of values should the nation adopt in the light of the religious freedom we enjoy. I also share Birzer's assessment that The Constitution is not being sufficiently followed today. In fact, it is concern not just of Birzer and conservatives, it has been a long time concern of many Leftists.

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

June 4

To Matthew Hall and his blogpost on reasons why we should learn Church History. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition Website.

Having taught a course in world religions, I can vouch for the need to read Church history. But beware that much of our history contains scenes that are for neither the squeamish nor the romantics. Our predecessors have been guilty of some terrible crimes and of oppression. And we need to learn these not so shining moments of our history to realize what we are capable of. It isn't just those people in the past who sin, it is us too. And despite being Christians, we are capable of doing some horrible things to others.

I found Church history to be both necessary to learn and depressing. But those depressing parts can bring a necessary sobriety to how we view ourselves and the Church.

Between The Rock Of History And The Hard Place Of The Future

Robert Jensen is one of my favorite activists to listen to and read. Though he is a member of a Presbyterian Church (St Andrews Presbyterian Church, which is a church in the PCUSA denomination), we really don't come from the same religious tradition. He does not believe in Jesus as being God's Son (click here) while I do. But Jensen says he believes in the "core principles" that Christ taught. So in a way, Jensen's Christianity resembles that of many people including Thomas Jefferson.

If at this point, my fine fellow flaming fundamentalist friends and family have found reason to ignore what he has said and written, they would be missing out on a buried treasure of convicting messages. For, in his work as an activist, Jensen can challenge us with the best of them to follow a certain set of principles taught by Christ. And so us Christians would do ourselves a favor to learn what we can even it is from confessing nonbelievers.

The article being reviewed here is about the failure of American intellectuals to stand up to wealth and power (click here for the article). The role of the intellectual as people like Chomsky sees it is to act as a rational prophet, a prophet who warns the people about the direction in which society is going but does so using logic and science rather than inspiration and divine revelation. According to Cornel West, our religious institutions from all faiths have already lost prophetic voices. And as a result, we see society racing towards a self-annihilation while the alarm bells are too faint to wake us from our dreamworld.

We could get into the specifics of the article on why intellectuals are content to comfort people in being satisfied with the status quo,  but you can garner that for yourself by reading the article. It is Jensen's train illustration that we are here to first understand and then use to learn how to respond to the many crises that jepardously threatens our collective futures. 

In this illustration, one sees that the train one is riding on is about to derail. So one suggests that rather than continuing the ride, the train should stop and all who are on the train should disembark and continue the trip on foot. The response of all others to this suggestion is to refuse to believe the danger because the people are not only too comfortable, they have grown accustomed to their surroundings. So, to expect all others to follow the suggestion to leave the train is to be unrealistic.

This metaphor applies to how most of us respond to the two main threats that act as the sword of Damocles which hang over the collective heads of all mankind: war and environmental catastrophe. For when leftists, like myself, repeat the warnings of Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, and Martin Luther King about how war will eventually cause the extinction of mankind, we are told to get real.  We are told that because war is almost as old as sin and thus it is only from an idealistic "pie in the sky" attitude that thinks we could change now. In other words, the reality of history tells us that we will never change and so why waste one's breathe on asking for it. Since people have always relied on wars in the past, they always will do so in the future. That is reality.

This reality of history narrative reduces all reality to the past in order to give us permission to not change course despite the evidence that tells us that we are racing to certain doom. Why? Because to change course, to depart from the train, would result in participating in a disruption of our normal way of living and doing things, a change that would introduce too much immediate discomfort. And so the desire to avoid this discomfort enables us to deny the second reality, that is the reality of our coming destruction, the reality of our future. For how can we ever escape extinction when we inevitably arrive in an age of the proliferation of WMDs while still relying on war and force to resolve our most basic conflicts?

At this point, some will be tempted to ask, what comfort can possibly come from relying on war to solve our problems? To the victors, go the comforts. War brings us the comforts of the acquisition of conquest and control. But here, even History tells us that no one is on top for ever. Every great nation and empire has fallen from its victorious perch.

The same point can be applied to our coming environmental apocalypse. Despite the rising amount of CO2 in the atmostphere and the environmental changes that have already taken place, not only have we refused to change, we are doing worse. So not only are we not cutting down on our use of fossil fuels, we are extracting these fuels in ways that are more and more harmful to the environment. From mountaintop removal to fracking to tarsands extraction to deep sea drilling, we are increasing our econoligcal footprint rather than minimizing it. 

And it isn't just our lifestyles that are attacking the environment, it's China's as well since it has surpassed us in the production greenhouse gases. Our demotion to 2nd place was already predated by the China excuse for not changing our way of life. That excuse asks, why we should change our consumption of fossil fuels to protect the environment if it no longer matters what we do because of what China is doing? In other words, we are too comfortable to get off the train.

Certainly a comfy past presents a hard and fast reality against asking people to change. But there is more than one reality in today's world. Global climate change is accelerating before our own eyes as can be seen in the disappearing of ice in the North Pole and the breaking up of ice in the South Pole along with the dead zones in the ocean. And with this global climate change comes life threatening weather changes to some areas because of the water supply problems, wildfires, the diminishing ability to grow crops, the increase in the number of stronger and stronger storms, and the raising of global sea levels which threatens to evict millions from their homes.

While the reality of History holds us back from making lifesaving changes, the reality of the Future is banging on our door and telling us to take shelter. These two antagonistic realities are battling for both our souls but for our future existence. 

This battle between History's claim on us and the Future's ominous prophecy should be familiar to us Christians because evangelism occurs when we make the Bible's version of this conflict known to people. The reality of the past tells us that we can only expect people to sin and reject God. The reality of the Future warns us of what will happen if we do not repent and believe in Jesus to save us. If such a battle between History and the Future occurs at this level, should we be surprised that a similar kind of battle occurs on earth between the reality of past and current seeds we've sown and the dangerous harvest that will be reaped if we don't change now? Though Jensen does not believe in the Gospel call and thus the dueling realities that comes in evangelism, his illustration of the train that is about to be derailed certainly tells us of the more than one reality we are accountable for on earth. And we need every reminder because those who are addictably comfortable with History's reality want to deny what is coming in the future.

So it is knowledge of these dueling realities in Jensen's illustration which can potentially save us. And whether it actually saves us depends on how we respond and whether we are willing to leave our comfort zone for sake of our future and that of others. 

Writing History To Rationalize Anything

While celebrating our 28th wedding anniversary in Boston, MA., history became a topic often discussed. This was due in part to the land and sea Duck Tour we took along with walking the Freedom Trail. And one of the lessons we learned was that those who report the news have something in common with those who write history, both can have agendas.

Two such historical events that illustrate this point are Paul Revere's Ride and the Boston Massacre (its site is pictured on the left). We learned that Paul Revere's Ride was not as dramatic as Longfellow's poem would have us to believe. When challenged on the historical accuracy of his poem, Longfellow replied that he was a poet, not a historian. Similarly, the name "the Boston Massacre" implies that more people were killed than the five who lost their lives. But both events were hyped with the latter being used by some colonists to inflame passions against the British.

But not all of our history has been exaggerated. While walking the Freedom Trail, we visited the U.S.S. Constitution (pictured below). Multiple tour guides were quick to describe the ship as Boston's only undefeated team (33-0). With its sides being made from Georgian oak, cannonballs either bounced off or got stuck in the hull limiting damage to the ship during battle. As the ship's reputation grew, would be opponents would sometimes forfeit, that is surrender before the fight began, in order not to become another victim.

Another piece of history that was more honestly reported was what was said about the Puritans. The Puritans came to this country seeking religious freedom. Unfortunately, they didn't practice the Golden Rule in this manner as evidenced by how they treated Quakers. In fact, the Puritans could also exhibit a high degree of intolerance against their own who were seen as religious slackers.

But there is another kind of history. It consists of under or unreported stories from the past. I noticed on Boston's Duck Tour that little to nothing was said about the plight of the indigenous peoples, who witnessed the landings of the Pilgrims, and for good reason. Our forefathers ethnically cleansed the land of these Indians. The attacks on the native population in New England were often done in the name of God as the Puritans saw themselves as the New Israel who were to take possession of Americas as their own Promised Land while regarding the Indians as the early Israelites did the Canaanites. Neglect in reporting this history also shows an agenda.

But why would those having an agenda use history? It is because history plays a significant role in how people live in community. History can give us reasons for either hanging together during tough times or making joint sacrifices to meet challenges. And history can obligate us to continue what was started by others. In any case, a certain level of conformity and following orders are necessary and history can justify such obedience. This means that a favorable history would be binding on individuals and groups in contrast to a troubled one.

Thus, we see why those who are more patriotic want to idealize our past. For the more exceptional our Founding Fathers are perceived to be and the more we think they have given us, the more obligated we are to follow their lead. We can also see why an honest reporting of facts would be threatening to those who are patriotic. In fact, troubling past actions are rarely acknowledged unless one is under duress. We only need remember how German civilians who lived through WWII never fully admitted what their country had done to the Jews and others until invading armies made them visit the extermination camps. Perhaps this can explain why we still show a serious disconnect with our nation's treatment of the American Indians since we were never forced to face our atrocities against them.

The history of provision is important in the covenants described in the Bible. Adam was told of the Garden of Eden before God commanded him not to eat the forbidden fruit. God told Abraham how he brought him out of the land of Ur and gave land to him and his descendants as the reason for why he should obey God. The Ten Commandments start with God having brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt and slavery as the reason why they should obey the Commandments. And in Romans 12, Paul tells us that it is the mercies of God that obligates us to offer ourselves as sacrifices.

The question that American Christians must face is whether attributing our freedoms to the Founding Fathers borders on idolatry. For the higher the regard we have for our nation's Founding Fathers, the more their perceived provision obligates us to follow them. And the more we feel indebted to them, the more our loyalty is divided between honoring them and worshiping and following Jesus.  Some attempt to resolve this conflict by making the story and message of our Founding Fathers an extension to the Gospel. But in so doing, not only must they depend on a strongly filtered history of our nation's founders, they must change the Gospel message to make it conform to our nation's founding documents.

But there is one more point at which an inflated esteem for the Founding Fathers could conflict with Christianity. The more we admire the Founding Fathers, the greater difficulty we will have in fully acknowledging their sins.  And difficulty in recognizing their sins can become a refusal to confess our own. It is here that our admiration for the Founding Fathers and our reluctance to admit sin will allow us to continue doing wrong including those sins that have caused the most destruction.

The inflated self-esteem of those who settled this country gave them permission to visit atrocity after atrocity on America's indigenous peoples. The idea that we are a city on the hill allowed our nation's first European residents to live and grow rich off the backbreaking labor of Black slaves. And when we buy their view of themselves, we continue in committing their atrocities. We invade country after country or overthrow one government after another or install and support harsh dictator after harsh dictator because we feel entitled to exert our will over any country we can. As one friend so callously put it without reflection, it is what America does. So while we rightly condemn governments like Syria's for its deadly attacks on dissidents, we remain silent on the government of Bahrain and its suppression of dissidents because its present government is useful in meeting our strategic goals. And the first reason we assume that we have the right to rule the world is idea that we have a unique history that puts us above all other nations. But the irony is that as our perceived uniqueness moves us to imitate so many examples of history's past empires.