Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 18, 2016

May 12

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote on the DOJ’s inconsistency on gender identity issues. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The problem with the quote above is that it works from a basic ignorance. The questions about Mount Holyoke are inane and fails to recognize that the college is inclusive in its admission policies, not exclusive. So while they do admit women who identify as males, they also admit men who identify as women.  So why should the Obama administration punish a college that is as inclusive as possible when it wants to address those who are exclusive. As for boys playing on girl's teams, this occurrence seems too rare to have to address at the time.

What seems to have passed everyone's notice is that the medical field does not support the Christian  notion that gender categories are discrete. Instead, the medical field, in dealing with what is called gender dysphoria, sees gender classification along a continuum (see http://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-professionals/clinical-updates/psychiatry-psychology/mayo-provides-integrated-care-for-people-with-gender-dysphoria  ). And in a nation where we have the freedom of religion, which will more influence government regarding gender identification: Will it be conservative Christianity or the medical field?

We're entering a time where some groups that have been long suppressed and marginalized are escaping persecution. So the question for us religiously conservative Christians becomes how can we be faithful to what the Scriptures teach on this subject while not associating our faith with past or present efforts to disenfranchise those who are currently escaping marginalization, which is the LGBT community, in society? For if, because of the fuss we make, we appear to want to reestablish the past marginalization of the LGBT community in society while remaining silent on larger issues such as our nation's embracing of war and militarism, our exploitive economic system, and a way of life that is destroying the environment we will rightfully be seen as being all too willing to beat up the individual over his/her sin while silently giving approval to those who are using force on or exploiting others and threatening everyone's future. Here, we should remember how the Church behaved prior to the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions and how that resulted not only in the persecution of Christians, but in the dishonoring of the Gospel.

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

May 13

To Juan Sanchez and his blogpost on 3 principles for how Christians should relate to the gov’t. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Though there are some good points here, the article is still rather shallow. How are we suppose to respond to the gov't when it practices injustice? See, such a question is really not addressed above. What democratic processes are we allowed to use to influence the government? Some democratic processes include civil disobedience. Are we allowed to practice civil disobedience? If so, when?

And what about the historical and contextual differences between the times when the Scriptures were written and now. Certainly, the differences won't address the general principles the Bible gives regarding our relationship with the government, but how we implement those principles could very well be different. As Martin Luther King tried to reconcile the need to speak out against the gov't for unjust laws and Romans 13, he came to the conclusion that respecting the law in general could include peacefully practicing civil disobedience while being willing to pay the price for breaking the law.

And why don't Christian leaders ever include the OT prophets when they talk about our relationship with the gov't? The OT prophets could be very confrontational when dealing with those in authority.

In the end, while many of our Christian leaders act as if the sky is falling for each battle we lose a battle in our culture wars, their endorsement of our exploitive capitalist economy and teachings like the above on how to submit to the gov't says that they side with wealth and power--the kind of mistake that isn't new to the Church.

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

May 16

To Bruce Frohnen and his blogpost on whether America with its emphasis on individual home ownership and its mix of private space and public space should seek to become more like Europe. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

It's not quite clear what this article wants to say. On the one hand, how the American way of life should be is described in the same way that some Vermont politicians have described what gun laws should be: that gun laws could be different for urban areas than they are for non urban areas. We have an American way of life that is urban and one that is not urban and how the urban parts are somewhat like Europe while the rest is the real America. But on the other hand, America, that is the America of the past, is given an idyllic and monolithic description revolving around its individualism. What was missing there was how this romanticized picture was not experienced by all that way. That many of our most successful communities from the past were homogeneous in nature and tended to be more White and not  of the lower economic classes. 

And as Europe is described, a key missing factor here is not just the urban lifestyle of Europeans. What is missing is that the close proximity that the European nations have with each other. An even more key factor that is missing is the strong  but starting to fade memory of WW II. Yes, we fought WW II but Europe had to rise from the dead because of WW II.

But something else should be mentioned here. The America of homeownership got a rude awakening due to the economic collapse of 2008 when millions were the victims of foreclosures and the losses in household wealth and pensions of many disappeared due to the independent spirit of America's financial sector.

In the end,  it seems that what this article is really about is the battle between interdependence identity vs interdependence reality. And this battle very much falls in line with the current battle over the rights of transgendered people where the members of one side want to first determine gender identity by how people feel about themselves vs the other side that only wants to use their physical facts from biology one is born with. And it plays out that way in this article because regardless of what our political and economic systems say about how much we are connected with each other, some Americans want to measure their interdependence based on how they feel about themselves.

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

May 17

To Collin Hansen and his blogpost discussion with Michael Horton and Tim Keller on how to teach God’s law in today’s society. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

One of the weaknesses I see with Keller's approach to emphasizing the Law in Christian living is that instead using what Jesus and the epistles taught, he uses a Reformed theological model. And thus the validity of his teaching on the law no longer directly depends on the Scriptures but depends more on how accurate the theological model he uses is in depicting the relationship between the Law and Christian living.

Another weakness I see is that he assumes that people experience shame or find meaning, hope, honor or whatever for the same reasons. And so he uses the Scriptures to tell each person how that they are feeling shame or look for meaning for the same reasons without having really listened to the person.

Finally, another weakness is the apologetic Keller is using for the Gospel is wholly inadequate. If we suppose that Christianity provides the best answer to people's yearnings, then there is no compelling reason to believe the Gospel because, as good as the Gospel is in terms of providing answers to life, a better answer might come in the future as a result of further discovery.

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

To Bradley Birzer and his blogpost on Reagan’s speech at a Notre Dame commencement that claimed we would defeat Communism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative website.

While some gush over Reagan's 10 words here and his presidency, let's remember some of what went into implementing those words. To carry out his words, we had to sponsor terrorism against the civilians of Nicaragua to the point of being found guilty by the World Court for crimes we committed against that nation. It also meant sponsoring military groups in El Salvador that eventually caused the MS 13 gang to come into existence in the US. It also meant fighting an asymmetrical war against Liberation theology and murdering a number priests by those trained in America. It meant that we invaded Grenada under false claim that American civilians were in danger. It also meant starting a multiple decade war in Afghanistan and the funding of a leader and others who eventually created a group that attacked us on 9/11. BTW, we funded their terrorism in Afghanistan but, like in Nicaragua, that terrorism was deemed acceptable because the governments of the people being attacked were deemed unacceptable because of ties to the Soviet Union. We should also note how that war continues to this day. I imagine that today's citizens of Afghanistan would look at those 10 words of Reagan with the same esteem that the writer of this article shows for them.

In addition, Reagan's approach to "Communism" meant that our government would take an all-or-nothing approach to labeling the Left and thus regarding all on the Left as being the same while starting our government on the path of becoming a handmaiden to business. Reagan attacked unions and weakened them helping the wages of Americans to stagnate and that is true to this day. But more than that, our domestic and foreign policies now revolve around serving the needs of business first, and perhaps people if there is a second.

But most of all, Reagan should be remembered for his ends justify the means philosophy that ruled over his foreign policies. Thus, as long as the target could be labeled as belonging to the Left, any means were acceptable. It is a philosophy that lives to this day in terms of determining our foreign polices. Now it isn't that we didn't use that philosophy before Reagan to justify our use of violence and terrorism. It is that Reagan elevated its acceptance to the level of being a religion. 

So be proud of Reagan's anti-Bolshevism, because anti-Bolshevism was what he was fighting against even though the Communism of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev had transcended it. And by bowing down to and singing the praises of Reagan, continue to show that Conservative Ideology  has even become the religion of some Conservatives.

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

To John Couretas and his blogpost on Samuel Gregg’s reaction to David Bently Hart’s condemnation of today’s Capitalism. This appeared in the Acton Blog.


If this article contributes anything, it provides another piece of evidence that the Acton blog is keeping an unfortunate tradition from the past that included what the Roman Church did in pre-revolutionary times of France and Spain and what the Orthodox Church did in pre-revolutionary times in Russia. What is that tradition? It is the tradition of the Christian Church siding with wealth and power.

We should note that, like Socialism, Capitalism is not a monolith. To give an example, the form of Capitalism practiced right after WW II until the early or mid 1970s was under Bretton Woods system where governments had more control over the economies of their respective nations. Under this system, not only was Europe rebuilt, economic growth in this country spanned equitably across all classes. Yes, there was state capitalism for some privileged companies without which they would never survive. But control of the economy  was, for a significant part, in the hands of government. And we should note here that Manhattan was built over time under several forms of Capitalism so that no one form can claim complete credit.

Today's Capitalism is called Neoliberal Capitalism with liberal being used in terms of freeing the markets from government regulations.  With this new form of Capitalism, nations have less control over their economy and less sovereignty as trade agreements and organizations began to usurp power over governments. But if we want to talk about whether such Capitalism is responsible for murder, then our first case study should be Chile on 9/11/73. For that is when  the US sponsored a military coup, that is after a few years of trying to destabilize the nation, where a murderous  military thug, Augusto Pinochet took power. He was put into power in order to replace the left-leaning  policies of Salvador Allende with today's Neoliberal Capitalism. And while Pinochet had some dissidents arrested and tortured, he had others murdered. The President he replaced, Salvador Allende, committed suicide due to the circumstances that the coup produced. 

As for whether Neoliberal Capitalism is still murdering people, we come to the question posed by Howard Zinn who asked: How different is doing things that make death inevitable from murder? 

Should we note how global capitalism has alleviated some poverty? It took away American jobs and gave them to people from other nations provided that the pay and working conditions of those people from those nations maximized profits for owners. So when we hear of a fire in a sweatshop factory in another nation, then we see another example of how Neoliberal Capitalism murders. Or when we see the premature deaths of people who never recovered from losing their jobs to sweatshop factory workers, we see murder being committed by Neoliberal Capitalism. When we saw people die prematurely because they never recovered from being forced out of their homes from our economic collapse in 2008, we saw murder being committed by Neoliberal Capitalism. When environmental regulations are being repealed or ignored in order to maximize profits, we see the conditions that will lead to murder in the future. And when we see the current deaths of people from Appalachia who died from environmental conditions caused by the Mountain Top Removal of coal, yes, we see murder. This is especially when that these people are often given a choice between a health threatening environment and no jobs.

In the end, how one views Neoliberal Capitalism  depends on whether one lives in the Capitol or one lives in the Districts, using the Hunger Games movie model of thought. What David Bentley Hart did in his article was that while living in the Capitol, he showed solidarity with those living in the Districts. In the meantime, Gregg shows that he stands in the tradition of the Churches that supported wealth and power during the pre-Revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 25, 2015

A preface for this edition of Comments Which Conservative Block...

1. Please note that the same amount of editing that goes into a regular blogpost is not put into the comments. Thus there will be more errors in the posts of this series than the other posts on this blog. So please be patient when coming across those errors.
2. The size of the posts in this series will gradually get larger because I am blocked from commenting on more blogs now by administrators. I inquired as why the latest website blocked my comments but received no answer. So judge for yourself why I would be blocked.

Nov 17

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about a 2-Kingdom approach to the law. This appeared in hiedelblog.

Let's be honest, though what the Westminster divines said about the godhead and soteriology could be adequately described as being  less influenced by  culture and more influenced by the Scriptures, the same cannot necessarily be said about the second table of the law. For example, what is missed in the quoting of the Westminster divines is Chapter 23:3 of the Westminster confession are the statements saying that kings were to punish blasphemies, heresies, and corruptions. The end effect was so that all of the 'ordinances of God' be observed. The above contains a  modern adjustment to WCF 23:3 not what the divines wrote..

We should also note how Calvin implemented the 2 kingdoms. For he had no qualms about finding, prosecuting, and persucting to the point of death those who were witches or heretics. So the question is how much do we want to use Calvin as a guide for what the Church should expect from or demand of the state. We should also note in his writings against the Jews, Luther, a 2ker in his own right, called on German society and princesses to punish the Jews for their continued unbelief.

We should note that regarding the law, Acts 15:10 makes a general statement about the whole law within the historical context of the Church determining whether a ceremonial part of the law requiring circumcision should be practiced. Vs 10 clearly states that the Church should not require its members to follow a law that nobody had kept up until that time including the apostles with the exception of Jesus of course. Thus we saw a letting go of the ceremonial law because of how it foreshadowed Christ's passion and an adjusted version of the civil law that was made far more flexible than what was stated in the Torah, rather than total elimination of it, as well as the requirement of the 10 commandments. Here we should note that some reformers, such as Martin Luther,  believed that keeping the law concerning the Sabbath was not in effect in the literal way that other reformers who were following Calvin believed.

But such brings us to the Christian "theonomists" some who are said to be on the left and others on the right. The problem here is that not all Christians on the left who call for justices are theonomists nor are they looking for some Messianic age. Some are merely looking for how we can improve life on this earth and thus take a more flexible approach to the civil laws, much like the NT Church did only the Left focuses on societal sins rather than personal sins. We should note that some of those civl laws were applications of God's moral laws especially laws that prohibited murder and theft. So what many on the Christian left did was to extract principles inherent in many of the civil laws that revolved around the prohibition against murder and theft and applied them to their respective societies rather than enforce them completely and literally.

Now it is true that Marx and many of his earlier followers, especially those who  lived in the early to mid 20th century and before believed in Marx's utopian dreams. Those Christians who mixed Marx with their faith could be accurately described as hodling to state-Messianism. But it would a gross overgeneralization and oversimplification to say that all Christians on the political left expect a state-Messianism. Why? While early Marxists attributed deprivation to the distribution of goods to the bourgeoisie, others focused on the building of community within the state as well as holding to what Chomsky calls the principle of universality. That principle states that how we judge others is how we should judge ourselves and vice-versa. This applied to what we gave ourselves license to in how we treated others as well as what we prohibited others from doing to us. 

Martin Luther King Jr., a person who opposed Marx but recognized the legitimat issues he was bringing to the table did well in describing the basic fault that could be applied to both socialist and capitalist approaches to society. King stated that if we are going to be on the correct side of the 'moral revolution,' our society must be a 'person-oriented society' rather than a 'thing-oriented society.' We should note her that King's move away from materialism is more consistent on socialism than capitalism. And such should raise red flags for Christians living in Capitalist economies.

Finally, we should note the serious flaw that exists in reformed 2KT. That serious flaw is that while the Church is free to beat up on the consciences of individual believers for their personal sins, the Church has no right to correct society torcorporate sins sins. And with the conservative Church's obsession with sexual sins,  the Reformed Church dishonors the Gospel not by trying to legally prohibit some new sexual sins while remaining mute over issues of slavery and imperialism with some empires being at least partially build on human exploitation and theft of land.

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

Nov 18

To Russell Moore and his blogpost asking if whether we should pray that ISIS be converted or defeated. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

Can we  pray for both? The article above is correct in answering with a yes.  As a group, we should want ISIS to be defeated. But since ISIS consists of individual people, shouldn't we want these people to believe in Jesus? That we should is an excellent point made in the article above. We should note that Martin Luther King Jr took a two-prong approach to his enemies. He wanted to win them over. But for those who refused  to be won over King wanted their behavior to be controlled to be controlled by the law.

At the same time, we can never afford to forget about the Wests's legacy of practicing its own evil in order to gain oil, profits, and strategic advantages.

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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on Christians being called exiles and strangers in this world. This appeared in Heidelblog

I think most of what was written above was good. But the following line needs more refinement:

Our most ultimate citizenship is in heaven but our citizenship in this world is truly important. 

Some have used that important worldly citizenship as a justification for treating people who share their own ethnic or national identity with preference over those who don't.

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

Nov 19

To Gaye Clark and her blogpost of when they helped an African-American woman with some problems by having the woman live with them. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website


One of the most important lines written in this article is below:

Racism is better understood when experienced than when explained.

That is especially true when we have a stake in having racism no longer being an issue. The other parts of the article are important to but in a different way. One of the things we must constantly draw people's attention to is the continued existence of racism.

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

Nov 20

To Benjamin Watson and his blogpost about racism. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

We should note that racism is nothing more than another form of tribalism. Other forms of tribalism include nationalism, classism, ideological tribalism, and religious tribalism. Tribalism includes believing that one's own group is superior. Watson mentions this above with regard to race. But we should oppose the other forms of tribalism as much as we oppose racism. And racism must be opposed as strongly as possible.

According to Martin Luther King Jr., there is one more part of racism that was not included above. In speaking against the Vietnam War, King said the following:

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

So according to King, we will have racism for as long as we count things as being more important than people. That is something for a consumer society to think about.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on what we should know about Syrian refugees in the light of the attacks on Paris. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

There is something else we should note about the Syrian refugee problem and it has to do with the attacks on Paris. According to a recent Washington Post article, not one of the known attackers were from Syria. Rather, they were all citizens of Europe.

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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of William Buckley Jr as he criticized Yale’s economics education for not glorifying the individual. This appeared in the Heidelblog

So is Buckley saying that it is less idolatrous to glorify the individual, disparage government and community for that matter, play in the hunger games, and to encourage self-reliance while denying the interdependencies that are inherent in the system?

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

Nov 21

To Caleb Greggsen and his blogpost that comments on terrorism and its effects. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

There is one more response to terrorism that is necessary, but not mentioned. That response is when it is your own country that is practicing terrorism against others. What about our drone missile attacks that either cause collateral damage or, perhaps, target innocent civilians? What should a Christian's response be to those?

And if we are going to include Christians being beaten or robbed as acts of terrorism, why not include when our own government supports brutal dictators who beat and imprison their citizens for political reasons?

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

Nov 23

To John Courts and his blogpost associating the Syrian Refugee problem with the Arab Spring movement in that nation and quoting an Orthodox Church official who stated that Arab Spring was the result of misguided American foreign policies. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Misguided American policies caused the Arab Spring? That is difficult to believe since American policies backed those with power with whom they were doing lucrative foreign aid business. That was certainly true in Egypt and in Tunisia. It wasn't true in Syria since Russia cornered the military aid market there. And American policies didn't start the Arab Spring in Tunisia. That started with self-immolation of one of its citizens and that was precipitated by living conditions.

The Arab Spring in Syria was inspired by successes in Tunisia and Egypt, but became violent in response to the government's  violent response including the conducting of a massacre. Other groups joined including some in the military that took the original peaceful movement into a violent reactionary direction.

Btw, we should note that the Ocuupy Movement started in places like Tunisia and Egypt and that includes Occupy Wall Street (OWS). The preparation for OWS on Sept 17, 2011 occurred prior to the event when activisits from places like the Middle East and Spain came over here to teach activists how to make decisions and run meetings. I remember my first participation in the Global Justice Working group of OWS because of what seemed then to be almost a majority of people having come from other nations, particularly Middle East nations.

But here, we should also consider the source. As in Egypt, except when the Muslim Brotherhood was in control, the state Church, that is the Orthodox Church, has supported a strong-arm dictator simply because that dictator provided protection for the Church. Thus, out of self-interest, the Church in Syria, that is another Orthodox Church, has supported a tyranical regime because that regime kept it safe from religious extremism. Perhaps, this is just one of the reasons why some in Syria's civil war want to target Christians. With the help of these Christians, they have associated the Church with a brutal tyrant.

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

To Joe Carter and his article about what we should know about the Syrian refugee controversy. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Perhaps Carter should update his sources. According to a Washington Post article, an article that is more recent than the one Carter cited regarding the refugee-attacker with the Syrian Passport, all known participants in the Paris attack were Europeans. A fake Syrian passport was found and its appearance is now believed to be the result of the attackers's attempt to throw off the investigators regarding their identity. A link to the Washington Post article I am referring to is below:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/17/were-syrian-refugees-involved-in-the-paris-attacks-what-we-know-and-dont-know/

Editor's note: Please see more recent news articles than the one linked to above to see if any Syrian refugees have been implicated in the Paris Attacks. The date of the article linked to above is November 17

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

To Matt Smethurst and his blogpost on how Christian history can benefit us. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

What is missing in this blogpost is the obvious that Church history can also disillusion us. Yes, this article is about how Church history can benefit us. But a warning label about how it can also disillusion us or, at best, teach us that we are all sinners must be attached to any legitimate church history study. When we consider the political maneuvering, intolerance, and violence practiced by Church leaders and heros throughout the history of the Church, it is sometimes more difficult to be inspired by them than to be repulsed. I experienced this reaction as I occasionally taught a World Religions class when I use to teach. 

And there doesn't seem to be much difference in the Church's behavior today as the Church latches on to political parties leaders that show them favoritism even though the same visits violence and injustice on its own citizens and abroad.

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

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost telling us to silently submit to the civil authorities regardless of how unjust they are. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Besides the gross generalizations made about student protesters and Islamists (a.k.a., Muslims), I've protested with both and found your descriptions to be wanting in even the majority of instances I've been involved in, you given contradictory insturctions regarding our submission to the civile authorities. See, on the one hand you tell us to silently submit to even the most unrighteous authorities and yet you tell us to lell us to love everyone, including those who are suffering even gross injustices at the hands of the same authorities. And you do so forgetting the different historical context in which we find ourselves from the time of the apostles.

I know there is an exception to your rule here. That exception would be if the authorities told us to disobey God. And we have the examples of Daniel, Meshack, Shadrack, Abendigo, as well as the Apostles, to name a few,  to thank for that.

But what about when we see a civil authority practicing injustice. Are we to silently submit to that injustice and let others be harmed and abused? See, how is it that we can silently submit to authorities unrighteously oppress our neighbors while loving our neighbors at the same time? After all, you did tell us to love others. And how is it that we can honor the government and not tell them that they are practicing injustice?

Now you have already stated that Paul and Peter gave us these instructions under some of the worse circumstances and there is no argument there. But if honoring the Lord is an important reason for the Christians to obey the Civil Authorities back then regardless of how horrible they were, does doing the same today honor the Lord or does it cause outsiders to not want  to listen to the Gospel or even want to persecute Christians? If you don't believe the latter situation, please realize that one of the reasons why Christians have been persecuted in places like Syria and Egypt is because they support tryanical leaders in exchange for security. Here, Christians invite those in the Middle East to oppose them for their support for Israel. And in the old South, remember that Christians not only supported slavery at one time, they supported Jim Crow and it was civil disobedience that helped eliminate the latter.

If we were to never disobey the civil authorities as they practiced injustice, how would Moses have survived childhood? How would the OT prophets have challenged their kings and their nation about the injustices they were practicing? 

And what about the change in historical context between then and now? After all, were not the Apostles first concerned about the spreading of what was to the world then an unknown Gospel. So Paul used his impriosnment to go to Rome to preach. And Peter told people to submit so as to not bring dishonor to the Gospel. Well, hasn't the Gospel been spread throughout the world? And aren't we living in democracies now so that we are at least partially responsible for the sins of the state officials we elected? And since when has remaining silent in the face of gross injustices brought honor to the Gospel or has been a way of loving one's neighbor who is being unjustly treated?

It seems to me that the hermeneutic that says we are silently submit to unjust gov'ts today is one that reduces God's description of our relationship to gov't to that which was preached by Peter and  Paul while forgetting the rest of the Scriptures as well as not applying all of the Scriptures to new historical contexts to both the state of the Gospel in the world as well as the new responsibilities Christians have in democratic societies.

On the other hand, we have some nonChristians who, out of love for neighbor, challenge the government when it oppresses others and thus risks the consequences of so doing. This leads to two questions. First, how is it that our neighbor will, under these circumstances, not perceive the nonChristians as being more loving and outer-directed than the Christian? And how is it that Conservative Christianity, for the most part, has fashioned a practical theology that tells its followers to support status quos that benefit those with wealth and power while remaining silent about their sins? In other words, and in the words of some of my liberal and leftist friends, how is it that the Conservative Church has become anything else than an institution of indoctrination to maintain the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power? Perhaps if you just loved your neighbor, you would have interpreted Scriptures more accurately than what is done in the article above.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 8, 2015

April 2

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Kevin D. Williams about how there is an organized campaign to enforce ideological conformity. This appeared in Heidelblog.

What? Nothing about how our economic system is destroying the environment or exploiting workers? Nor is there anything about the wars that are going on or the reviving threat of a Cold War and possible nuclear exchange? I guess we certainly wouldn't want to challenge those with wealth and power on those issues from which they benefit the most.

As for the new ideological conformity, aren't our complaints similar to America's complaints about terrorism? That is because we've defined terrorism as what others do to us and our friends, not what we do to others. And think about it, wasn't homosexuality once criminalized? And weren't homosexuals so stigmatized in society that they were more threatened with physical abuse and even death more than they are now? And weren't, or should I say aren't, homosexuals still subject to job terminations because of their sexual orientations? And wasn't all of that suffering experienced by homosexuals due, at least in part, to Christianity's influence on society?

The pendulum is swinging the other way now and where it will stop, nobody knows. Just realize that what we see with the current pendulum swing is at least a partial reflection of what those in the LGBT community experienced with the pendulum swing was in the favor of conservative Christianity. Yes, people losing their jobs because they hold to a biblical view of sexuality is definitely wrong. But before we wring our hands over that and what may come in the future, isn't it time to reflect on how many of us conservative Christians handled the past? And, btw, the existence or lack there of of private property has nothing to do with what is going on here. This is especially true since the statement about there being no private property is a veiled reference to Marx and his belief in the abolition of private property without realizing that the reference shows no understanding of what Marx meant by the abolition of private property. Likewise, the refusal of Christian vendors to provide goods and services to same-sex weddings shows no understanding of a capitalist economy.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost about the tragic attacks on Christians by terrorists in Kenya. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Isn't this a tragic repeat of history and more due to what Christianity has associated itself with than Christianity itself? After all, isn't Christianity associated with Western Civilization and hasn't both American and European history show that Western nations have used force to exploit and abuse those in the Middle East for the sake of greed? The West has drawn artificial boundaries for nations, invaded and/or attacked Middle East nations (remember that modern zionism is a European venture), overthrown democratically elected governments, supported tyrants, and supported terrorists And when Christianity does not protest and oppose these actions by the nations in which Christianity is dominant, then it is viewed as having supported them.

And so aren't these attacks simply at least a partial repeat of history once we study events like the French and Russian Revolutions? For who was the Church siding with during the times leading up to those revolutions?

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how unemployment is an economic-spiritual indicator. This appeared in the Acton blog.

http://blog.acton.org/archives/77324-unemployment-as-economic-spiritual-indicator-march-2015-report.html

What is never pointed out here is that unemployment can be an economic-spiritual indicator of two groups: the unemployed and employers Those employers who dismiss or offshore workers in order to maximize profits are exhibiting a spiritual problem.  In addition, those who pay workers poverty wages, use sweatshop labor, and/or use trafficked or slave labor also show they have a spiritual problem. And we should note the growing wealth disparity and that the recovery has, for the most part, has gone to the wealthiest in the economy. And since many cost cutting decisions have been made to appease stockholders, we see that the unemployed are not the only ones with a spiritual problem.

In fact, in a global economy that is fueled by greed and driven by competition, what else should we expect?

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

To John Couretas and his blogpost about how a Russian Bishop is blaming the West's past interventions and slow reaction for the Christian genocide in the Middle East. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Do the Bishop's criticisms of the West go far enough? And are there valid criticisms to lay at the feet of the Christians there? We should note that saying yes to the latter question does not justify the coldblooded violence practice against them.

If the Church would only look at the history of the French and Russian Revolutions to learn that, sometimes, one's friends may cause it to be rejected by others even be treated as an enemy. In those two revolutions, the Church aligned itself with wealth and power. As a result, revolutionary forces viewed the Church as an enemy, not a potential ally. We could fast forward to today where, because of the protection offered, Christians in Syria back a tyrannical  regime. The temptation to do the same exists in Egypt as, if memory serves, al-Sisi earned the votes of Christians because they viewed him as one who would protect them.

Now what is wrong with siding with those would protect you? If that is all there is, nothing is wrong. But when you support someone who oppresses others simply because your group is favored, then you have left principles and morals for security.

In addition, Christianity is strongly associated with Western Civilization and Western, especially American, policies. Western policies have favored economic and strategic goals over principles and morals. Thus, Western policies have overthrown an elected government, supported tyrants, supported terrorists, and supported Israel's brutal occupation of the Occupied Territories. And because the West, especially America, is associated with Christianity, Christianity, like in the revolutions mentioned, gets at least partial blame for hardships in the Middle East.

Thus, the question of whether the Bishop's criticisms of went far enough must be answered with a resounding 'NO!' Certainly, the Bishop was correct in what he said, he just could have said a lot more.

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

April 6

To Thomas Kidd and his blogpost on why not many Reformed Christians have been pacifists. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

First, I think we should think about pacifism as being more on a continuum than in an absolute sense. Yes, there are those who are pacifists in all situations. But some are more pacifistic than others and why that is depends on what a person believes should justify a war.

Second, we should note that militarism and the desire for others to be punished depends on how authoritarian one is. And considering the number of authoritarian relationships we have in our lives, we tend to be very authoritarian thus it is sometimes difficult for us to turn off the authoritarian-switch in our thinking. And often, the acceptance of state authoritarian figures includes implications of  loyalty to one's nation. This authoritarianism plays against Calvinists being pacifists in two ways.  First, there is the desire to see others submit to the authorities. If they don't, then those who do not submit should be made to submit--punishment. Second, because there is the desire to submit to the authorities, will prohibit one from challenging leader's call to war.

Third, we tend to be literalists in that without any explicit Scriptural commands or exact examples from the scriptures to imitate, we tend to reject how those in society react to what they feel is unjust. Thus, many of us Calvinists end up trying to get people to adjust to any injustices by become spiritual spartans. After all, that is what we believe the apostles called us to do. And since we are trying to teach people to imitate us while we imitate Christ, we try to teach nonChristians to adjust to the world as Christians should.

Thus, Kidd is right in saying that Reformed Christians have felt too at ease with state violence done by their own state. It is unfortunate because that degree of ease has caused some very unfortunate associations to be made with the Gospel. And articles like this one are long overdue.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 28, 2015

Jan 27

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost blaming Gov't programs for poverty and creating a culture of dependence through entitlements. This appeared on the Acton blog.

Is there any questioning of Eberstadt's perspective here? Or why assume that it is the gov't that is creating dependence. Take how some corporations use gov't assistance programs to subsidize their payrolls as an example. Is it the gov't assistance programs that cause workers to be dependent or is it the poverty wages that drive workers to apply for these programs?

Or take the offshoring of workers and technological unemployment as other factors. Is it gov't programs that are causing dependence or the lack of opportunities caused by those factors that are creating the dependence.

We have an economy that revolves around enriching elite owners almost regardless of the costs to all others. And we have a gov't that is paid to continue to cut social responsibility ties for these owners. And who is being blamed for the dependence being fostered in the system? If only some conservative approaches would quit blaming the poor for their poverty.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost claiming economic freedom liberates people from poverty. This appeared in the acton blog

We should note that the term 'economic freedom' is code used by some conservatives to talk about elite business owner privilege in society. Why this rather harsh assessment? One only needs to see the target beneficiaries of 'economic freedom' along with the emphasis put on such freedom and the demotion of other freedoms to see why the harsh assessment is made. Of course, one could also look at the countries where there is this 'economic freedom' and see what responsibilities elite business owners have been freed from and who suffers the most to understand the claim that the term 'economic freedom' is simply code for elite business owner privilege in society

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the Prison Entrepreneurship Program and how it has helped prisoners from returning to prison. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Not to be critical of PEP's program we should take note of the following:

1.    Many times, a prisoner who has a realistic chance to obtain meaningful work after prison with good pay and chance to secure a decent place to live, recidivism will become less likely.

2.    If providing a good education prevents people from returning to prison, then providing good education can also prevent people from going to prison in the first place.

3.    What's missing in the statistical information is the rate of acceptance into the program. How many prisoners were accept in relation to how many applied?

Certainly, PEP should be warmly celebrated for their results. However, it certainly does not provide a silver bullet solution to our nation's incarceration rate and the problems released prisoners face.  In addition, what is sorely lacking in business education is the kind of education that allows one to look at the current business environment and economic system from the outside. If all the PEP business education classes do is to teach people how to work in the system, then their graduates will only learn how to become significant cogs in a machine and thus, however unintentionally, contribute to any exploitation that is built into the system they've learned how to operate. We might also ask where is private sector commitment that would provide educational programs that would prepare students for careers other than those in business.

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

To John Couretas and his blogpost on Greece's move to the Left. This appeared in the Acton blog.

A former colleague of mine told me why Greece had suffered its economic hardships. The first reason was the amount of corruption that existed in the relationships between the private and public sectors. The second reason was that everyone was doing what they could to avoid paying taxes. The third reason was that Greeks need to learn how to work harder.

If my former colleagues assessment is correct, then we in America should pay close attention to what is happening in Greece because of the similarities between the two countries,  What has spared us from already suffering problems Greece is that we can more easily print money for needed revenues. We should also note that with both countries, more and more of the wealth was being owned or owed to wealthy elites from the private sector. This redistribution of wealth upwards is one of the reasons why the Occupy Movement started and spread throughout the Mediterranean area prior to coming to Wall Street. This upward redistribution of wealth makes a growing number of people more strongly dependent on wealthy elites from the private sector.

We should also note that when a writer on Greece's economy shows no knowledge of what neoliberalism is, as Couretas demonstrates here, the articles produced by him will probably not yield any great insights. Neoliberalism is what Milton Friedman promoted. Neoliberalism is what is practiced in many Western nations today. And we should note that it is practiced with devastating results. And history shows that many times, governments have had to bully the people into experiencing this kind of economy which is ironic because neliberalism champions a laissez-faire relationship between gov't and business. The first example of such bullying came with the coup that replaced Chile's President Allende with military dictator Augusto Pinochet. Argentina and Russia also saw bullying used to install a neoliberal economic system.

The real key to how Greece will be administered by the new government is how much it will include people to participate in its decision making processes. What Conservative often fail to see is that widespread participation  is an essential part of being a leftist. If Greece's new Prime Minister Tsipras rules as a well-meaning elite, then a changing of the guard between conservative and nonconservative elites will more like become the order of the day.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 25, 2014

June 18

To Bethany Jenkins and her blogpost on equipping the Church for cultural leadership. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.



I think it is time that we Christians stop feeling compelled to be leaders. Such, of course, implies a hierarchical relationship with others and, because others have less sanctified reasons for being recognized as leaders, there is competition for the role of being a leader. But more than that, being the leader pushes others to the margins and it does so based on a perceived lack of merit.

At Occupy, though we certainly did this imperfectly, we tried at some levels to establish a leaderless/all-are-leaders community. Yes, we were definitely imperfect in doing this. But such called and included those from the margins into the decision making process--something a hierarchical based community cannot do.

In the end, we must decide whether we want Christianity to control the different spheres in our society as leaders or do we want Christians to work with, in give-take relationships, all others in society. So perhaps teaching Christians to be leaders in their spheres of influence is giving us a mindset and putting us into positions that causes us to overreach in our interactions with the world.

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

June 21

To Denny Burk and his blogpost on the PCUSA decision on same-sex marriage. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog


For a people who believe that all are sinners and that those who believe that being saved comes from confessing one's sin, we seem to be very accusatory especially when it comes to sexual issues.

Conservative Christians are as much to blame for the Presbyterian Church's recent decision as anyone else. Conservative Christians have, for the most part, worked to marginalize gays in society--that is because they were not content enough with relying on Church discipline. Thus, those who are sensitive to oppression and inequality were implicitly told that the only way to protect gays in society was to determine that homosexuality is biblical.

Certainly the Presbyterian Church USA is wrong in its decision here. But how much more wrong have many of us Conservative Christians been when, in order to control the behavior of others, we have caused so much pain?

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

To Dr. Michael Brown and his post urging people to leave the Presbyterian Church USA because of recent General Assembly decisions. This appeared in the blog OneNewsNow.com.


When one looks at all of the positions being objected to in this article, it becomes unclear as to whether the author is opposes the PCUSA because it is unbiblical or because it is liberal.

For example, there are Christians who oppose Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and Modern Zionism. Such opposition has be clearly stated in an article linked to here (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/wdoor.html). One may not agree with their position but their position is backed by Scriptures rather than by "liberal" reasoning. And this is the problem with this article. Certainly the PCUSA was wrong in its decision on same-sex relationships. But divestment from Israel cannot be blamed on liberalism when the Scriptures so clearly against how the Palestinians are treated. And though their violence is wrong, it is just as wrong to condemn it without noting its context. But such is not the conservative view of the Middle East.

Our first allegiance must be to God and His Word, not to some nation or ideology. For a greater allegiance to a nation or ideology is just an example tribalism, an ism that calls for relative morality.

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

June 22

To John Couretas and his blogpost on unity liberties. This appeared in the Acton blog.


The defeat of USSR Communism is often sanitized the West. For one thing, Communism and Socialism is stereotyped by using the USSR and Red China as their representatives. The Iron Curtain has been wrongly portrayed as evidence for the Communist desire for empire and rightfully condemned because of the totalitarianism. And we are portrayed as defenders of freedom whose global bases served as our commitment to that freedom.

First, many socialists and communists strongly disagreed with the totalitarian nature of both the USSR and Red China and that goes back to the beginning of Lenin's paid hijacking of the Russian Revolution. That main reason for the Iron Curtain was to provide a buffer between the Soviet Union and the West because of past devastating invasions is quite a reasonable, alternative explanation, but not an excuse, for the Iron Curtain. And that the US exercised its own control over nations around the world from Asia to Europe to Central and South America and that control took away the freedoms of many countries--see works by former CIA consultant and historian Chalmers Johnson and historian William Blum. That Iran, Guatemala, and Chile served as examples where the US replaced democracies with dictatorships for business interests. Okinawa and the Philippines serve as examples of the US exercising control and Asia. And there were a number of actions taken in Europe such as in Greece and Italy where the US stealthly flexed its muscles.

So when we get down to the liberties being celebrated by this post, there seems to be something missing. That missing ingredient is balance and that particularly applies to economic liberty. The more economic liberty given to the individual, the less say the community has in how that liberty is exercised. Here, I am not primarily referring to the government because a government can take on different forms and represent different people. Rather, I am talking about a liberty that defenders of Conservative Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalists want to deny: group or social liberty as implemented by democracies. Here, if we recognize economic liberty for the individual as the only liberty, then not only do we allow financial elites to accumulate power because power always follows wealth, we make democracy impotent which destroys any protection that communities would enjoy from financial elites.

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

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost claiming that a new Obama proposal designed to protect the rights of those in the LGBT community is a deliberate attack on the Church and religious liberty.


Articles like this have one purpose, that is to stoke the fires of fear and anger. How is it that an effort, regardless of how incorrect, to try to protect the rights of those from the LGBT community can be portrayed as a targeted attack on the liberties of any individual or church is beyond me. That is not to say that Obama's proposal does not need revision, but to view such as a deliberate attack on any church is to pit the liberties of those in the LGBT community vs the religious rights of churches. And thus two fall guys are being edged as enemies of the Church: the LGBT community and the Obama Administration. This is not right.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For Jan 22, 2014

Jan 16

To R. Scott Clark's posting of a video of Ben Stasse criticizing obamacare



I could take what ben says if he was consistent. What about how the gov't forces us to pay for wars and policies that not only kill babies, both born and unborn, but kills adults and invites revenge.

And though I agree with Ben in opposing the use of tax dollars to fund abortions, where was his voice of protest for those who either chose not to see a doctor because they had no insurance or went bankrupt regardless of having insurance. Where was his outrage about the millions who had no insurance at all?

If you want to criticize Obamacare, and many of us on the Left do just that, then criticize the context that gave birth to Obamacare. Otherwise, the criticism strongly appears to be nothing more than a opportunistic, partisan attack. And what is worse is that when Christians conduct such an attack, the reputation of the Gospel is sullied to many nonConservatives who need to hear it. 

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

Jan 20

Below is a comment that eventually led to me being blocked on the Acton Blog. I made a general comment about the "basic conservative message" to the poor. One of the moderators demanded that I apologize for my "lies" against conservatives. I asked if he could show why my interpretation of the conservative message was unfair. So he blocked me instead. The conversation regarding the blocking was post on the threads of different posts.

To Joe Carter's blogpost on what auto racing in Finland can teach us about poverty.


Chilean economist, Manfred Max-Neef, says that there is only one way to understand poverty. That way is to be poor, to live in poverty. And since the poor are not a monolith, then to understand poverty, one needs to be poor in more than one way. Max-Neef compares understanding poverty to understanding love. He says that one can know about love, but unless one falls in love, one will never understand it. And he says the same is true about poverty and so he lived among the poor to get an education from them.

And yet, the Conservative perspective, and that perspective is expressed in many places in addition to this blog, tries to understand poverty from the perspective of the haves. Thus, the basic conservative message to the poor becomes, "Poverty is your fault. And if you want to escape poverty, you have to change because we aren't going to." That is the premise on which all other the conservative messages to the poor is based. And the preaching of that message is no more loud and clear than when Conservatives talk about minimum wage. For they say that if you make our business people pay you any more than we do now, we must fire some of you and not hire others. Why? It is because business people aren't going to change from maximizing their own profits. They are not going to change regardless of how their actions affect others.

All of this is important since we are coming up to Martin Luther King Jr. day. It is important because on that day, we will describe King as someone who has jumped on the bandwagon of our concerns and causes rather than the person who is constantly preaching repentance to us by saying that we need a revolution of values because the three problems of racism, economic injustice, and militarism are inextricably linked. Remember that when he was assassinated, King was working for higher pay and some degree of economic injustice for Memphis garbage collectors. Having said that, what do you think King would be saying about our minimum wage debate?

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

The following are the blocked messages that followed an Acton's blog moderator had with me.


To Marc Vander Maas on Joe Carter's what auto racing in finland can teach us about poverty

Marc,

I understand the emotional reaction. But at some time, the emotions behind the reaction must be logically explained. If my analysis is so wrong, please tell me how conservatives have understood poverty from the have-not perspective when they never criticize the system. Whether it is the minimum wage debate or using auto racing as an analogy, when will conservatives speak from the position of the have-nots. In fact, when have conservatives first lived with the poor and then written about poverty like the person I cited above? Max-Neef actually lived with the poor because he knew that the economics language he was so fluent in meant nothing to those who were poor. So he lived with them to learn from them. And lest you think I am picking on Conservatives, the same goes for many liberals? We might say that though liberals do love to foster dependence, at least they are willing to modify the current system.

For both, the answer always revolves around how to get the poor to make use of the system. And the system is presented as physical science with fixed laws that act regardless of what kind of economy is employed. 

Finally, yes, I am a religious conservative and a former political conservative. Before 2004, I had never voted for a Democrat. I strictly hold to the 5 fundamentals of Christian Fundamentalism. And what I am writing here is simply a reflection of what I have and heard from conservatives both here and elsewhere. The answer to the poor is to become like the haves so you can work the system. But people on Left, such as Howard Zinn, saw too many others who worked hard and were never lifted out of poverty.

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

To Joe Carter on cars and freedom from racial segregation

But aren't a multiplicity of cars a cause for environmental concern?

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

Jan 21

To Marc Vander Maas on family values and  minimum wage post on why acton is banning my comments

Marc,

Answering questions with questions is not evasive, it is a way of dialog, of thinking about what was said. I didn't do that all of the time, but when asked, I explained how my questions related to the questions being asked. But that didn't satisfy you because you wanted to dictate how I was suppose to answer your simple, direct questions. I gave you the content but not the form.

But look at the attitude expressed at my ideology, let alone me. It is as if you have nothing to learn from those on the left. I wouldn't say the converse of that. I think both sides have something to learn from the other. In addition, I haven't expressed the disdain toward conservatives that has been expressed against me. Yes, I have criticized conservative reactions to specific subjects. For example, when conservatives repeatedly say that jobs will be lost if the minimum wage is increased without being willing to criticize the system that allows for that, such behavior deserves criticism. 

As for my ideological cousins, what you have minimized the significant differences such as authoritarianism and elite-centered between the Leftism I follow and that old elite-centered Leftism. You dismissed those differences in favor of magnifying the role of collectivism in the tyrannies of the Soviet Union and Red China. And even when I cited examples of my ideological cousins who strongly criticized the tyrannies you wished to associate me with, you seemed to have ignored the examples. 

And why I interpreted the blocking of my comments because you don't your readers to read them is because you really didn't offer a logical challenge to my comments. I have seen other conservatives logically challenge my comments, but not here.

You are right, yous guys have the right to ban who you want and for whatever reason you want. But how we treat others is a reflection on us. I wanted give-take and too many times that was met with more emotion than logic. That doesn't mean that I was never too emotional, but note how in the auto-racing comments, I asked for specifics as to why my interpretation of the Conservative position was wrong. What I got in return, that is after the accusations, was silence That goes back to the previous paragraph. And I understand that. I was like that in defense of conservatism back in the 90s and before. Group loyalty does that to us whether we are Conservatives, Liberals, or Leftists and regardless of age. What really helped me shy away from that kind of group loyalty is the realization that that kind of loyalty is from tribalism or a gang mentality. What also helped me shy away from that was the Occupy Movement. That is because while many people were looking to us for ideological answers, we were saying that the solution is found methods that foster participatory economics and politics. And we weren't pure in how we did things. We showed internal violence from our own tribalism to the police and we sought to conquer the 1% rather than to include them by winning them over. And our future correction of those mistakes depends on whether we will read people like Martin Luther King. 

So I will continue to comment and whether you wish to include them is your business.

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