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

 April 30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 7

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

Trueman's article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too Team Oriented To See The Big Picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 21, 2018

March 8

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost's citing of a Carl Trueman on the psychologized self and identity politics. In that article, Trueman claims that the root of all oppresion is economic. Ts appeared in heidelblog.net

The problem with this portion of Trueman's article is that his claim about oppression is false. The root of oppression is not always economic. Blacks have suffered, and still do,  much psychological harm from various forms of white supremacy.  That has been as true for middle class and upper class Black as it has for lower class Blacks. Even today, racial profiling practiced by the police affects Blacks of all classes. White privilege affects Blacks of all classes. But it is not just Blacks who suffer oppression. Kids who are targets of verbal and online bullying suffer psychological oppression.
 
Trueman,  in how he reduces the root of oppression to that which is objectively measured, takes a similar approach to understanding oppression as some, especially some liberal theologians, take to understanding reality. That is they believe that only that which is physical is real. In the end, it seems that Trueman, as a theologian, is not only fighting a turf battle with Pscyhology. he might be trying to excuse or even deny some of the abuse that has been directed from the conservative Church toward certain non-mainstream groups. That abuse includes the conservative Church's efforts to marginalize the LGBT community in society. Here we should remember those Christians who used their religious beliefs to justify and promote the racism that was part of the Jim Crow era. In addition, we should remember the efforts of Martin Luther in trying to get German society to marginalize Jews becaue of their persistent unbelief.

Unless the conservative Church only wants to evangelize political conservatives, it should study the history of oppression in the West in order to remove any current support for or participation in that oppression by its clergy or members of the congregation

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

March 17
 
To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost that compares Romania under Communist rule with today’s Romania and with what it hopes to become. This appeared in the Acton blog.

It seems like from the above description of Romania that not much changed from the overthrow of Communism back in 1989 in terms of structure. Many of the leaders are still the same. You had authoritarianism in Romania under Communism and you have it today. Only corruption today has gone wild while it was seemingly contained under Communism. And you have Romania growing closer to closer to authoritarian Russia--btw, calling Russia authoritarian just might be an understatement. So is Romania on the 'long road back from Communism?

We might want to answer that question from a Socialist perspective--noting that there is more than one such perspective. Socialist and contemporary of Vlad Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, offers some interesting insights. Her critique of Lenin's regime was that by relying on just a handful of people (Lenin and his Central Committee) to rule over the rest, Lenin was employing the same kind of leadership that the bourgeoisie employ in the private sector. So it seems that Romania hasn't really changed from its days under Communism except that the Socialist leaders from the past became today's bourgeoisie leaders  through their acquisition choice private property. What was Luxemburg's alternative to Lenin's regime? It was a proletariat dictatorship that Luxemburg described in the following way (see  https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm  ):

but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique – dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy.

According to Luxemburg's description of Socialism, Socialism was never employed by Romania. Instead, what we saw in the pre-1989 Romania was the employment of a bourgeoisie model. And can we say the same for Romania today? That Romania is still employing a bourgeoisie model only it is a different model than what Romania employed when it was a "Communist" nation only the older model obviously provided checks that then prevented today's abuses.
Though the Socialism that Luxemburg proposed could be legitimately criticized for creating only a partial democracy, a classocracy where the proletariat replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class, she provides some useful distinctions between Socialism and bourgeoisie rule which counter the Conservative mantra definition of Socialism/Communism or, for short, Marxism.

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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that quotes Machen on how attempts at rescuing Christianity from scientific criticism actual serve to hurt Christianity because it attempts to change the definition of Christianity. This appeared in Heidelblog

The kind of rescuing that evangelicalism/fundamentalism needs now is not scientific, it is political in terms of party and ideological alliances. The association between evangelicalism/fundamentalism with the Republican Party and political conservatism is so strong for individual evangelicals/fundamentalists that it both politically blinds its own members from the real world and continually serves stumbling block after stumbling block to those outside the Republican and conservative political ideological circles.

In addition, because so many have been blinded, evangelicals/fundamentalists are paying moral values to the Republican Party and conservative political ideologies for a promised protection against an encroaching secularism. These moral values would otherwise be used to protect workers and others as well as the environment from exploitation by those with wealth. The Republican Party reduces being pro-life to the abortion issue in order to manipulate the votes of a vast number of evangelicals/fundamentalists. By reducing being pro-life to the abortion issue, the Republican Party has succeeded in persuading evangelicals/fundamentalists that it is the pro-life party while the Democrats are not; though, in reality, both parties have a mixed-bag record on being pro-life--that is if we count the concerns of those who have been born as part of being pro-life.

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

March 18

To Joe Carter and his blogpost  on tariffs and trade balance. this appeared in the Acton blog.

The weakness of the above post is the assumption that  tariffs and other such protectionist measures are practiced only for the sake of supporting mercantilism. America's history shows that is not the case. America employed protectionist measures, such as using tariffs, from its beginning as a nation through the FDR's Administration. Those measures were not used for the benefit of merchants who could charge highest price for their protects as tariffs eliminated foreign competition--even though that was an immediate result. Rather, as Ha-Joon Chang points out, protectionism was employed to give American industries a chance to become competitive (see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/ha-joon-chang-protectionism-the-truth-is-on-a-10-bill-5334137.html ).
In addition, I believe that Griswold's claim about trade policies and deficits is wrong. First, we should note that both have required the importing of certain goods over using domestic products. , And at least NAFTA has contributed to the offshoring of jobs which contributes to the increase of imports (see https://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/1999/october/trade-deficit-import-export-imbalance-currency/  ).

In addition, there seems to be a conservative inconsistency in allowing trade deficits to soar. After all, when the Federal government spends more money than it takes in, the Republicans sound the fiscal responsibility alarm indicating that we are building an insurmountable debt for our descendants to overcome. But when it comes to the trade deficit, it seems that the more the deficit, the merrier the Republicans become. To offset the trade deficit, investors from other nations buy American properties and businesses in order to finance the deficit. And another things that happens is that the American dollar eventually becomes weaker and it could possibly lose it position in the world economy as the default or reserve currency. Also, as more American businesses are owned by foreigners, then the more foreign investors will be able to buy the ear of our elected representatives. And the more those investors can buy, the less our officials will listen to us.

Though there are things to learn from Adam Smith's war against mercantilism, protectionism, when rightly employed for specific reasons, can benefit others than merchants who wish to corner a given market by eliminating competition.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 29, 2015

July 21

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote that claims that the Left's Identity politics has control over all of society's driving institutions including all parts of the government and the media and thus blames it for closing American minds as well as a host of other problems. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Bloom was against indifference. But the cause for indifference when he expressed his concerns is not at work today. Rather, what is causing indifference is more accurately identified by Francis Schaeffer. To Schaeffer, the threat of the day consisted of two idols: personal peace and prosperity. The first idol said was defined as one not caring about those who are suffering whether they were neighbors or the one suffering lived on the other side of the globe. These second idol was prosperity itself. King, whether knowingly or not, agreed with Schaeffer about the second idol. For King stated that as long as we are more concerned about profits, gadgets, and property rights, we are a 'thing-oriented society' rather than a 'person-oriented society.' And for as long as we are the latter, the triplets of racism, materialism, and war could not be undone. We should note that for King, the reference to materialism was really a reference to a multisided object which had materials on one side and economic exploitation on another side.

Now I write the above because from my 19 and 1/2 years experience of teaching in college, it is not leftist faculty who are closing the American mind in college. It the ever increasing control exercised by administration who are businessfying their institutions so that it can tell faculty that students are customers in an effort to control to educational process. And part of the businessfication of college also includes with that course offering emphasis on vocational training and decline in the offering of liberal arts majors. The more businessfied college becomes, the more students are pushed in the direction of being thing-oriented rather than person-oriented.

The above blogpost quote seems to be nothing more than a lamenting of the loss of privilege by a group eager to scapegoat its replacement for all of today's troubles, which was done in the article cited. But since their scapegoat no longer is in the driver's seat in colleges today, the charges ends up being empty. That is not to say that there are no abuses from the PC crowd, there are. It is to say that the effects those problems have are being exaggerated without any due reference to the need for a PC crowd and what it gets right. So while the above blogpost quote wants to target the elite universities, assuming that it accurately portrays them, what about the all of the other colleges that produced the vast majority of graduates and thus having at least potentially a greater influence over society?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 27

To William Doino and his blogpost about the errors of Liberation Theology. This appeared on the First Things blog.

What I find disturbing here is how easily Marxism is painted with a single brush. In addition, there is the assertion here that Christians should have nothing to do with Marxism. At the same time, while acknowledging the hardships and injustices to which Liberation Theologians were responding, nothing is said about the Capitalist system that produced such troubles nor was anything said about who was supporting the paramilitary troops who so persecuted Liberation Theologians.

There is no contradiction between agreeing with Marx's analysis of Capitalism and Christianity. The problems with Marx really lie in his solutions. But Christians can adapt some of those solutions and there is an important reason why we should. The exploitations that are inherent in Capitalism demands that we seriously learn from its critics, like Marxism. Martin Luther King Jr., who had no high regard for the Soviet Union's Communism still understood that it provided a corrective to Capitalism's overemphasis on both the individual and its own promotion of materialism. And we should note here that much of the exploitation that is such a part of Capitalism is because of its dependence on and promotion of the consolidation of wealth and thus power. That oppression from an upper class, though not being the only source for conflict between people, plays a predominant role in the history of mankind. Thus the redistribution of power first and wealth second cannot only provide some structural safeguards from Capitalism's exploitation of people and the environment, it can also put people in the position where they must act more conscientiously toward others.

We should note here that one of Martin Luther King's mistakes in judging Marxism was that he equated what Lenin and Stalin created in the Soviet Union was the epitome of Marxism. Too many Marxists, even from the time of Lenin, opposed that form of Marxism and were more than eager to distance Lenin from Marx. Whether one agrees with their assessments of the differences between Lenin and Marx is not the issue; the point is that Marxism is not some monolith that will forever have the same relationship with Christianity.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 28

To Ryan T. Anderson and his blogpost that warns us that religious liberties are being threatened by the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage and America's changing values. This appeared on the Firstthings website

Ok, let's return to the good ole days of America's founding so we can reacquire what our founders had. Of course, if you were Black, Native American, or a woman, the Biblical values recognized back then would subject you to the White man. And the Constitution and other documents would tell you that you would not be subjected to just any White man, you would fall under the reign of White men who were were landowners.

Of course, things changed in this country but not because we stayed with those original Biblical values. Though we fought a war to eliminate slavery, Jim Crow ensured that we would have an ordered liberty. And religious values were used to support that hierarchy. A similar hierarchy existed with regard to women. And what emancipated them were the same religious liberties that enslaved them--not. So perhaps those two examples are proof for some that the same religious values that moved our society to once criminalize and now persecute those who have a different sexual orientation could never guarantee the religious liberties of those same people who have been marginalized because of their sexual orientation. Of course, bakers florists and photographers say thank you to those same values.

Finally, we need to see why some push for limited government. For those who favor limited government know that democracy is a form of government. So if one promotes limited government, one also promotes a limited democracy. And when democracy is limited, that is when collective self-governance is limited, then power is procured by elites in the private sector with no one strong enough to stop them. In fact, with the lack of either regulation itself or the enforcement of regulations, what has arisen are financial institutions that are too big to control. It is here that government is like love in one way: size doesn't matter, fidelity does. When wealth and power are allowed to consolidate in elite portions of the private sector and the voting public becomes apathetic to what its government is doing, government naturally becomes unfaithful and thus it can use its great power to either rule over or support wealth and power from the private sector, or, if it is small, it become impotent to handle the challenges presented by elite sectors from the public sector.

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





The First Things Blog had put a 'Removed' notice next to the comment below.  Some time after that they reversed that decision and published it.
 
To Carl Trueman and his blogpost about finding a Calvary Option to responding to the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage. His option basically said that we should live our Christian lives the way we were before the decision. This appeared in the First Things blog.

Carl,
there are some things in your life that shouldn't change. The life you have with the Church and your wife should remain. But here are some things that should change. Just as you have warned us against same-sex marriage, you should also preach against economic exploitation, the destruction of the environment, and the reliance on militarism and war.

Why should you change in the ways suggested above? Because real Christians are victims of economic exploitation, destruction of the environment, and the willingness to rely on militarism and war. But not only that, real sinners, including some Christians, are perpetrators of economic exploitation, destruction of the environment, and the willingness to rely on militarism and war. So if you add to your preaching, challenges against economic exploitation, destruction to the environment, and the reliance on militarism and war, perhaps your opposition to same-sex marriage will be interpreted differently by those outside the Church. So all you need to change is the scope of your ministry.

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

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost on the certainty that entrepreneurs can rescue communities by their economic dynamics. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Markets are one place where value is created. And that slices several ways. First, there are other places where value is created because not all value is monetary. In addition, the markets can be manipulated to serve a few rather than many. Third, the overall system itself determines value and that isn't always a good thing.

Neither people nor products shouldn be reduced to monetary value. Yes, in an age where greed reigns,  the monetary values that markets produce carry much weight. But society can assign other values besides monetary value. Societies can recognize the intrinsic value of each person and thus offer safety nets to those who aren't producing an adequate value to the markets. When the only value people and things have is the monetary value from the markets, then we've seen the falling of the shroud of the love of money.

That markets can be manipulated is a given. That they are manipulated to give some a competitive advantage over others to the extent that the financial survival of others is threatened is ominous.  And we should note that not all manipulation practiced by the markets is illegal. For example, when globalization was applied to the labor force of different kinds of industries, such as the textile industry, the supply of workers increased dramatically thus cutting the cost of that labor. Sweatshop labor, both here and abroad, was a result of the globalization. And the market responded by providing cheaper prices for some clothing. But invisible people paid the cost for those lower prices.

We should also note that when the labor force for other industries was globalized, continued offshoring was the result. This increased the supply of low skilled labor domestically had a predictable result of freezing or even lowering wages for low skilled employees. BTW, owners of different industries are the ones who benefited the most from this globalization. So did those consumers whose jobs were neither offshored nor were impacted by lower wages. So when labor for certain industries was globalized, the value for same work as before was reassigned a lower value by the same markets being exalted here.

Finally, we need to address the system. Marx noted that the labor power of wage earners had become a commodity just as much as raw material and other commodities used in production were. This objectified the wage earner and made him/her disposable since a business could always replace the wage earners with new ones who were willing to work for less. What also became disposable were both the families of the wage earners as well as their communities because both were dependent on what the wage earner made. If we add to that mix that Capitalism is always changing the means of production, this puts many wage earners at risk in becoming surplus people in society --the term 'surplus people,' if memory serves, comes from Naomi Klein.

Yes, we want people to be productive and to earn good pay. However, if the system is designed to enrich the wealthy at the expense of many others, then many entrepreneurial ventures can only bring disillusionment. And this will continue to be the case for long as the market value of people and things is the only pertinent value recognized by society. And that the system is designed to enrich the wealthy at the expense of many others is easily shown by determining who loses that which has the most critical value during our economic busts and who gains the most wealth during our economic recoveries.