You're In Seminary Now To Study Church And State, Part 2

This article is a continuation of last Friday's article. It is a reaction to a seminary lecture by Kevin DeYoung on the relationship between Church and State. A link to DeYoung's personal description was given in the previous article (click here for the link to the lecture covered by today's article).

It is worthwhile for one to listen to the lecture. I will give a brief summary here and then react. That means that I will probably omit mentioning  some interesting details in the lecture.

DeYoung's lecture revolves around the views of James Bannerman, an 19th century Scottish Presbyterian. He first describes, using Bannerman's model,  4 different relationships that can exist between between the Church and the State, only here he will be referring to it as the relationship between Christianity and politics. DeYoung himself likes to combine insights from each of the 4 relationships described in his view of the relationship between the two. Those relationships consist of:

1. Christianity against politics
2. Christianity above politics
3. Christianity as politics
4. Christianity under politics

Christianity against politics is the view that a Christian should not be involved in politics because any such involvement is idolatrous. One weakness of that approach is that it promotes and ignorance of important issues of the day.

Christianity above politics is the view that Christians can read about politics but they must be careful not to conflate any particular ism or ideology with Christianity. DeYoung notes that the weakness with this approach is that one is tempted to see equal value and the same level of contributions to the world from all isms and ideology. DeYoung used capitalism and Marxism as his examples in noting the weakness of this approach.

Christian as politics is the view that there is a conflation between  Christianity and country or Christianity and an ideology or ism. Examples of this view come from both the Left and the Right, according to DeYoung. The problem is that there is no room left for one's judgment on the different views that are identified as Christian.

Christianity under politics says that Christianity is the or part of the base for Western Civilization or the founding of America as a nation. The problem here lies in making Christianity the servant of promoting Western Civilization or the founding of America so that Christianity can only say what promotes the interests of Western Civilization or America.

After this, DeYoung goes into what Bannerman says are the distinctions between the Church and State while not cutting the cord between the two. It was well understood that Christianity used to provide public truth in how things were generally perceived. And how the State should maintain that public truth without favoring a particular denomination.

DeYoung states that our nation's Founding Fathers had that view of America. The view that says that Christianity provided the public truth of how to perceive things.  And that they also believed that the Republic could not survive unless the people were a religious people of the right religion without favoring any denomination.

And so though Church and State are different and independent, there are still ties between them which started from the founding of the nation. DeYoung describes the Establishment Principle and how Bannerman saw that playing out. The Establishment Principle states that the State must recognize that Christ is the head of all things and must promote Christianity. It can do so in various ways without violating the First Amendment, in the view of Bannerman and others.

All of that puts the Church in a crisis today because of the drastic change in public truth. In general, the public does not view Christianity as providing an explanation for the general state of things. And the question becomes how should the Church respond.

For the Christian, the answer to that question depends on the similarities and differences one sees between the Church and state along with the ties between them.

Now the following response does not require all of the details of the lecture to be listed. What should be noted here is that only a theological view of both the State and Church are seen as providing the grounds for any view regarding how the Church and State should relate. Here, no definition of democracy, since we regard our nation as a democratic republic, is considered in determining how the State and Church should relate.

Here I would like to include a quote from Jeff Halper on the difference between a democracy and what he considers to be an ethnocracy (see pg 74 from Halper's book, An Israeli In Palestine:Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel):

An ethnocracy is the opposite of a democracy, although it might incorporate some elements of democracy such as universal citizenship and elections. It arises when one particular group—the Jews in Israel, the Russians in Russia, the Protestants in pre-1972 Northern Ireland,  the whites in apartheid South Africa,  the Shi’ite Muslims of Iran, the Malay of Malaysia and, if they had their way, the white Christian fundamentalist in the US—seizes control of the government and the armed forces in order to enforce a regime of exclusive privilege over other groups in what is in fact a multi-ethic or multi-religious society. Ethnocracy, or ethno-nationalism, privileges ethnos over demos. whereby one’s ethnic affiliation, be it defined by race, descent, religion, language or national origin, takes precedence over citizenship in determining to whom a country actually “belongs.” Israel is referred to explicitly by its political leaders as a “Jewish Democracy.”

I would even use a looser definition of an ethnocracy than Halper does with the main point focusing on a given religion's degree of privilege in the nation. The point being is that when Bannerman, or DeYoung, or anyone else ascribes to any religion some level of privilege or degree of supremacy, the essential part of Democracy, which is equality, is lost. And so apologists and promoters for a special place for any religion have made themselves enemies of Democracy. 

The change in America's public truth has changed the status of Christianity and the Church in America. And except for those who belong to Christianity against politics group, this change in public truth has caused a crisis. And we don't know how to respond to the change. 

But there is another change that DeYoung seems not to have recognized. That with Christianity losing its place as providing the public truth for the nation, we have been switching from being an ethnocracy to some degree more towards being a Democracy. So we have to consider how will the Church be perceived if we seek to undo that change.

DeYoung spends quite a bit of time describing how Christianity served as a basis for the founding of America. That all of the Founding Fathers, according to DeYoung, believed that religion was a vital part of keeping the republic. That is because a republic requires a virtuous people and, according to some, being virtuous requires being religious, especially being religious in terms of the true religion: Christianity.

But in so doing, DeYoung overlooks the lack of virtue in an America that could be considered to be more Christian than it is today. In other words, DeYoung is glossing over a lot of history in talking about America's past. 

Just take his comments on the Founding Fathers and the founding of the nation for example. DeYoung doesn't mention why the Founding Fathers gathered to write The Constitution. The Founding Fathers gathered to write that document in response to Shays Rebellion and the widespread dissent over the economy at that time. 

Evidence pointing to that claim can be seen in Henry Knox's letter to George Washington which refers to the widespread dissent. In his letter, Knox speaks pejoratively about those who were rebelling while never mentioning that many of those who were rebelling were veterans of the Revolutionary War. In addition, the references to the Militia in The Constitution makes it clear that the Founding Fathers were looking to create a stronger central government than what the Articles of Confederation provided. After all, one of the purposes of the Militia was to put down insurrections.

Challenges to America's virtue from the past when Christianity provided the public truth for the nation rely on the various levels of white supremacy. Evidence for the reliance on white supremacy can be seen in the enslavement of Blacks and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans. And for almost the first 80 years of America's existence as a nation, only whites could become American citizens. After a brief respite from the oppression of Blacks provided by the aftermath of the Civil War and Reconstruction came the Jim Crow era. Native Americans were still being ethnically cleansed and, btw, women were subjugated during this whole time.

Even after the Civil Rights Movement, we still see quite a bit of evidence of systemic racism. And until recently, those in the LGBT community could be incarcerated for their practices.  So now the Church has to deal with the question of equality for that community without compromising Biblical standards of morality. So far, the Church has not handle that problem well. For here is the next place where the Church can be seen as an opponent to equality and, thus, Democracy.

In short, what DeYoung has not accounted for in the Church's place in America is what has turned off others to Christianity and unnecessarily created enemies of the Church and scars on the credibility of the Gospel: disillusionment. With so many injustices to account for while Christianity was seen as providing the public truth, is it any wonder that the public truth has changed vendors?

More could be said here. For example, how does the existence of corporate sins affect the relationship between the Church and State? With the existence of corporate sins practiced by the State and in society, doesn't the Church have a responsibility to, out of evangelism, call on the State and public to repent of such sins, while challenging its members not to participate in such sins?

What has been said in the questioning of DeYoung's approach shows the weakness of the approaches of many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians to the relationship between the Church and State. That weakness? It is myopic approach to the subject and not just by DeYoung in his lecture, but in many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians. The insularity of DeYoung's approach shows that perhaps the conservative Church is not yet ready to listen to those to whom the Church wants to preach and by whom the Church wants to be heard. Perhaps here, when talking about the relationship between Church and State, before seeking to restore Christianity's past role of providing the public truth, it should first practice the Golden Rule.

You're In Seminary Now To Study Church And State, Part 1

Instead of reviewing an article, we will be listening to a seminary lecture on the relationship between the Church and State. We will be listening to Kevin DeYoung (click here for a bio) as he lectures at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC.  The class that DeYoung is teaching here is Systematic Theology. Systematic Theology concerns itself with an organized approach to understanding  Christian doctrines.

The audio linked to in this post contains 2 lectures (click here for the lecture covered in this article). The lecture we are concerned with starts around the 1:11:14 mark. The lecture is an introduction to the relationship between the Church and State. It starts with identifying the mission of each one.

In that lecture, DeYoung first cites James Bannerman (click here for bio), a Scottish Reformed Theologian from the 1800s on what the mission of the Church is. Such is an important question when defining its relationship to the state so that we understand when the Church is trying to do too much and when it isn't doing enough in terms of how it relates to the State. Young then gives his own description of the mission of the Church. He states that the mission of the Church is to:

1. Lead people to believe in Christ as their Savior
2. Make disciples--which involves teaching them how to follow Christ
3. Start other churches

And so however the Church is to relate to the State, it must fit into the confines of the Church's mission otherwise the Church is either trying to do either too much or not enough. The mission of the State is to promote the well being of its citizens. And then the question becomes who belongs to the Church and who belongs to the State. Those who believe in Christ as their Savior and submit to the Church's leadership including its discipline belong to the Church. Those who belong to the State, or we could also say to society, includes those who belong  to the Church along with those who don't.

To offer some contrast here, DeYoung then provides the definitions of the Church and State as provided by Stephen Wolf who promotes Christian Nationalism. DeYoung states that Wolf believes that the Church is a 'colony of heaven' while the Christian nation provides a 'complete image of eternal life on earth.' This seems to make the Christian nation more revelatory of how God relates to us than the Church is suppose to.

In response to Wolf, DeYoung describes the Church as an embassy for God's people. This model of thought points out that Christians are in a foreign land and that the Church is there to protect believers in Christ and to promote their interests and welfare while they live in a foreign land

Where does all of this leave us? In terms of the mission of the Church, we need to know what is involved in helping people to become believers in Christ. But the Church is interested in more than just participating in people becoming believers, the Church is there to teach believers how to follow Christ throughout their lives. And that includes sending out believers so that they can start new churches.

But in all of this, there are two contextual questions we need to ask. First, what is involved with helping people become believers in and be disciples of Christ in the 21st century as compared to the 1st century? Second, what are people's place in the State now as compared to the Apostolic times?

The first question deals with both what we need to say to help people believe and how we should live as Christians so that our lives do not interfere with people's desire to listen to the Gospel. And unlike the 1st century when Christian life was more simple, Christians must either stand on the shoulders of or apologize and repent for how past believers have behaved. For we need to realize two truths here: 1) that once we call ourselves Christians, everything that we do or say as well as that which we refrain from doing or saying can effect the reputation of the Gospel; and 2) we all stumble in many ways. And we cannot over emphasize that 2nd part so that truth should scare each of us believers very much. For not only do we have to account for all that we do or say and all that we don't do or don't say, we have to account for the same from our spiritual ancestors.

That part of having to account for what our spiritual ancestors said and did as well as well as did not say or did not do is part of what complicates today's Christian efforts to share the Gospel with people. And just when we could adjust to that, there is another complicating factor: the people's relationship with the State.

In a more authoritarian state, the people's relationship to the State is more simple and clearly defined. But in a democracy, people's relationship with the state can become messy and unclear. That is because in a democracy, we participate in how the State makes decisions from the local level to the national level. And here, again, we must account for the successes and failures of our spiritual predecessors in terms of how they did and did not participate in the State. Their actions and inactions have given the Gospel and the Church a track record to run on, to run away from, or to clean up. And sometimes we must do that in order to get a person to even listen to the Gospel. 

But it isn't just our ancestors who have to worry here. Being in a participatory system like a democracy means that we more of share a measure of responsibility for the actions of the State that they did in Apostolic times.

Yes, in being accountable for the past, we are tempted to over compensate and over correct. That is where we need to remember the mission of the Church. But if we don't try enough to be accountable for the past, we fail by not saying and doing enough in terms of today's issues. Especially today's social justice issues.

We should note one other thing here. Politics and religion will always be deeply intertwined for as long as religion recognizes the importance of morals. Why? That  because much of politics is about morals especially when it is concerned with social justice.

The First Christians Were Not Socialists

Kevin DeYoung (click here for a bio) just wrote an article whose title strikes instant fear into the hearts of most religiously conservative Christians in America. The title of his article: Were The First Christians Socialists? Such a question raises the blood pressure of every good patriotic conservative American Christian because we all know that Socialism or Communism goes against their view of America. For their view of America centers on Capitalism, the Free Market, individualism, and speaking American English.

Now because the very first Christians shared everything in common, DeYoung felt compelled to address the subject. According to DeYoung, the first Christians were not Socialists, or even Communists (click here for his article). And DeYoung is correct in his assessment though perhaps not  for the reasons he specified.

DeYoung is correct, the very first Christians were not Socialists despite sharing all their possessions with each other. DeYoung goes on to say that neither were the very first Christians Capitalists either as far as we can tell. But then he grants Capitalism an indulgence that he does not share with Socialism/Communism. That indulgence states that we need to rely on Scriptural evidence other than explicit Biblical statements or specific examples provided by the very first Christians to determine if Capitalism is promoted by the Scriptures..

Now though DeYoung shows a bit more knowledge of Socialism/Communism than the average conservative American, he demonstrates that he has much to learn. What his article demonstrates about religiously conservative Christian Americans is their desire to use the Bible to enable Christians, if not everyone, to recover the Garden of Eden. Though they may not say that in those exact words. the moment they use the Scriptures to try to find what kind of economy would best meet the needs of people as they were created before the fall, they are looking to recover the Garden of Eden to some extent.

However, such a question itself may be at odds with the New Testament. After all, there is a danger in trying to use the Bible to sanctify one's preferred economic ideology. That danger is that by claiming that a particular and personally preferred school of economics is the Biblical choice, then one's Christianity becomes an avenue to self-worship, not the worship of God. That is because the Bible and the Christian faith become servants to a preferred sacred cow of one's own choosing.

How do we know that the First Christians were not Socialists or Communists, or Capitalist or whatever else? It simple. Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, and whatever else remains deal with economic or political-economic ideologies. What the New Testament is concerned with is to how to equip Christians to live as pure and reputable ambassadors of Christ who are always looking to enlist new citizens into Christ's Kingdom. The New Testament is not concerned with telling us how we can recover Eden.
 
Does that mean that Christians do not need to be concerned with political and/or economic ideologies and how they impact the world? Not at all, especially in these times. For though we don't have any examples of any First Christian endorsed ideologies or systems, our very placement in the world requires that we share society with unbelievers. So did the very First Christians. But unlike those First Christians, we live in a world where the Gospel has been spread throughout the world and we Americans live in a democratic political system that calls on us to participate with others. And thus the matter of how will we address political-economic ideologies and systems becomes mandatory for us religiously conservative Christians.

The above is said with one caveat: that though neither the New Testament tells us nor the First Christians demonstrated what kind of economic system we should have in the society that we share with unbelievers, we are called to speak out against the injustices practiced by any political-economic system by even, or especially, our favorite systems. Perhaps all of us will have our favorite political-economic systems, but there are two things we cannot do with those systems. First, we cannot say that our favorite system is endorsed by the Scriptures. Second, we cannot shy away from speaking against the injustices that our favorite systems promote or allow.

The above is the approach that DeYoung should have taken. He is more than correct in saying that the First Christians were not Socialists. He also shows that he is no opportunist by claiming that the First Christians belonged to some school of Capitalism. But in trying to show that the First Christians were not Socialists, he went out of his way to list the differences between how the First Christians lived and his understanding of Socialism or Communism.

DeYoung is correct in saying that if we can't make our case for a particular ideology or system from the Scriptures then we need to be upfront in correctly attributing the sources for our thinking to non-Scriptural sources such as practical considerations, history, or the Social Sciences. And overall, DeYoung's article is good and deserves to be read. It is that he could have taken a better approach in answering the question posed by the title of his article.










 

Shame: I Want To Live Without You

Shame is a painful emotional experience. It has become so painful that some are trying to redefine the human condition so that they can free themselves from shame's shackles and live without it. And that was recently the expressed concern of the board chairman of the Gospel Coalition, Kevin DeYoung (click here for a bio).

DeYoung laments over the recent modern attempts to define shame out of existence. He rightfully talks about its necessity in the Christian life because of our sinfulness and our need for feeling it for it drives to the cross (click here for his article).

However, DeYoung acknowledges that not all shame is Biblically-friendly shame. For he briefly mentions 'misplaced shame'--that is feeling unnecessary shame, Unnecessary shame is felt when we feel bad about things for which we have no responsibility or reason to feel responsible for. But then he quickly returns to a discussion of what he calls 'well-placed shame' and encourages people to feel its full effects.

The brief mention of misplaced shame indicates a recognition that today's avoidance of shame might be due to either the misuse of shame by past and present leaders or the wrongful employment of shame by sincere believers. And one hopes that is the case. Regardless of that possibility, DeYoung does not fully address legitimate reasons why some are avoiding shame at all costs.

We should note that DeYoung seems to define shame as negative feelings for having done something wrong. And that imprecise definition is one reason why he is not adequately addressing the misuses of shame and how they might contribute to the avoidance of it.

So to add to DeYoung's article on shame, a better working definition is needed. And here, if we check the Meriam-Webster Dictionary, we can discover both a good and bad definitions of shame. The good definition describes how we should feel when having failed God. The bad definition describes how we should not feel regardless of having failed God.
 
How does the Merriam-Webster Dictionary define the word 'shame'? What will be done here is to contrast the first two definitions (click here for the source):

1. a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety
2. a condition of humiliating disgrace or disrepute

There is a subtle difference between the two definitions. While the first definition makes no indication of referencing others as at least a partial reason for feeling pain, the second definition does. In other words, while the first definition describes how we might feel when reflecting on a failure without reference to or comparison with others, the second definition definitely talks about how our consciousness of others comes into play when feeling shame. The second definition indicates that a source for negative feelings comes from feeling inferior to others.

That second definition of shame is probably a reason why many of today's younger people seek to live a shame-free life. And when we look at the Scriptures, such an avoidance of shame should be viewed as unnecessary. For the feeling of such shame may, in most cases, not be a biblically sanctioned kind of shame. To make our case here, one only needs to turn to the parable of the two men praying (see Luke 18:9-14) where the tax collector, in contrast to the Pharisee, is overwhelmed with shame. But in expressing his contrition, he makes no mention of the Pharisee and how he had fallen short of the standards set by the Pharisee. Rather, his sadness was due solely to having only failed God.

Shame that revolves around feeling inferior to others, besides not really being a Biblical approved shame, often sabotages a person's attempts to repent. For such shame leads to a strong sense of alienation and a reluctance to reach out for help or even the inability to adequately admit one's failures. And thus it seems right that people should attempt to live without this kind of shame. The only shame here in avoiding this kind of shame is reducing the definition of shame to this kind of shame. And this kind of shame might lead to another reason why today's people are seeking to live a life without shame.

DeYoung fails to mention that, all to often, excessive shame is expected of people who have experienced moral failures. Now because of the seriousness of sin and God's holiness, some might look on sin as my youngest granddaughter views chocolate. For just as she believes that one cannot have too much chocolate, so some well-meaning fellow religiously conservative Christians believe that we can feel too much shame for our sins. But excessive shame too can sabotage attempts to change oneself.

We can experience excessive shame from what DeYoung calls misplaced-shame, or from the kind of shame that comes from feeling inferior to others, or from the efforts of others or ourselves to feel as much legitimate shame as possible. Excessive shame can end up being nothing more than an effort to punish ourselves to the extent as a way of compensating for our failures and wrongdoings.

When what was legitimately accepted in the past is wholly rejected by current generation, it is usually due to its misuse. We see that in Post Modernism where the metanarratives of both Pre Modernism and Modernism  have been totally rejected because both have been used to visit great injustices on people. Thus, whatever valid points found in those metanarratives are easily discarded along with what is false because of how they were used opportunistically to hurt and exploit people. So too, as we see many of today's people try to live without shame, it is all but certain that the Church, which deals with shame, has misused significantly causing people to feel either unnecessary shame or excessive shame.

There is really nothing terribly wrong with what's in DeYoung's article. His article is both an easy and worthwhile read. But he could have done a better job explaining why some people today seek to live shame-free lives.


 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 6, 2017

 When the first comment below was written, the article had a comment section though no comments were posted. That may no longer be the case.

Nov 14

To Kevin DeYoung and his blogpost on the recent revelations of the sexual sins of harassment  and molestation that accompany our public figures. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

As with other social sins, what we are seeing with the all of the sexual sins from harassment to molestation is an all-or-nothing approach to the the problem. For a long time, it was tolerated and now all forms of sexual misbehavior from an inappropriate sexual comment to blatant molestation are receiving the same degree of public condemnation. And with that all-or-nothing approach is practiced by a society that is very punitively oriented. And it is that reliance on punishment that all but guarantees the problem will continue at levels that are too high. For the all-or-nothing approach to punishment will inhibit people from admitting they need help in controlling their behavior. And the all-or-nothing approach to punishment will give others a sense of well-earned self-righteousness.

My attack on our misuse of punishment should not be interpreted as a desire to tolerate sexual harassment and molestation. Nor should it be construed as a rejection of ever using punishment in responding to these sexual sins. However, we need to address our overuse of punishment in society. Inappropriate sexual behavior is not the only problem behavior that is promoted by our faulty approach to punishment, racism is another sin that is enabled by our overuse of punishment.

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

Dec 4

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost that says because the Puritans survived by trade, we should follow their example and employ free market and trade polices. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

What can really be learned from the Puritans' experience with collectivism and trade? Can we conclude that collectivism never works because it didn't work for the Puritans? Those who know logic would look at the question as a ridiculously rhetorical question. For how does one example prove that collectivism never works? This is especially true since collectivism vs individualism exists on a continuum so that most nations  employ neither a purely individualistic free market systems nor a collectivist system. We should also note that there are a number of different collectivists systems. So what can we conclude from the Puritans who eventually used the Bible to justify the taking of land from the Native Americans they use to trade with?
What do the Puritans trade or market experiments teach us? They can only teach us how their trade and market practices worked for them in their particular situation. We should note that from near the beginning of the nation, the US embraced  protectionist trade policies and those policies helped the US develop industries that eventually became competitive with their counterparts from other nations. The US employed protectionist policies from its beginning as a sovereign state through WW II and even employed protectionist policies during the Reagan Administration.  So what does the above lesson teach us about free trade and markets in general?
We should note that free markets foster the idea of comparative advantage where each nation's economy should revolve around its current strengths. And such works great for developed nations like the US. The problem comes when a nation wants to develop for whatever reason. For development flies in the face of maintaining comparative advantage and protectionism allows that development to take place. To prohibit nations from employing protectionism in order to develop not only "kicks away the ladder," as some refer to it, that allowed currently advanced nations to grow and diversify their economies. It enforces an economic caste system on the developing countries. In other words, strict adherence to free trade only serves those nations that are wealthy and developed. And what we have to realize in the light of Johnson's attempt to use the Puritan's situation as an example for all to follow, the situation in which the Puritans and their Native American neighbors does not consist of the complex relationships that exist between developed and undeveloped nations in today's world.

Finally, we should note the difference between free markets and trade with Democracy. For the more that  Free markets and trade limit government intervention, then the more they limit democracy when a government is a working democracy. We should note that not all governments that profess to be democracies are actual democracies. An example showing how free markets and trade limit democracy can be seen in the WTO threat to put exorbitant sanctions on the US because the US used the democratic process to require meat manufactures to label the country of origin each product was from. Thus, the WTO worked against the democratically expressed wishes of the American people. Another example could have been seen if the US joined the TPP. For the TPP allowed corporations to sue governments if governments passed laws that were perceived as costing corporations profits. And those lawsuits would be heard not in a nation's court of laws, but in TPP tribunals. Also we should note that the coup that replaced a democratically elected leader in Chilé with a military dictator did so, in part, in order install a free market system in that nation. Such is another example of free markets butting heads with democracy. Of course, we should note that since the US has become more and more a free market nation, not only has wealth disparity in America increases, but the US is now classified by some as an oligarchy rather than a democracy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ).

We should note that the Puritans' relationship with its neighboring Native Americans up until the Puritans took land from them  did not show all fo the complex relationships that nations, both developed and undeveloped, can have. Thus, using the Puritans as a sole example for how we should act today while forgeting how our nation relied on protectionism in order to develop its industries is not conducive to employing sound logic.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost praying the profit system as the only viable economic system despite any injustices it incurs. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

The above article by Joe Carter is saying that because of the growth and development that the profit system enables, justice is no longer a relevant issue when determining economic policies. We should note that Carter is following the words of the economist Arnold King in saying that.

Yes, there are many problems with Carter's article. But perhaps, the greatest problem is seen when comparing what Carter says with a statement made by Martin Luther King Jr when he spoke against the Vietnam War (see  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm  ):

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.

We should compare this quote with what Carter is advocating because the criteria Carter is using is purely materialistic. This goes back to a comparison King made between Communism and Capitalism. While King denounce Lenin's materialism, he noted that Capitalism has its own kind of destructive materialism that is different than Lenin's. Carter's criteria for measuring the value of the profit system is purely materialistic and does not include the different kinds of harmful relationships, such as racism and war, that being so focused on things can cause between people. Thus, perhaps materialistic criteria should note be the only criteria used in determining the value of the profit system.

We could also add that we could employ the profit system in some areas of our economy and society rather than in all. Such would recognize that, like all other systems, the profit system carries tradeoffs and thus does not provide the sole solution to all of our economic problems.


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

To James Kalb and his blogpost that pits the Left against a sound understanding of human nature. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The first problem with Kalb's article is that it oversimplifies as much as it misidentifies the left. Hope and Change was not the left, it was liberal.  In addition, what the left observed about conservative Christianity is that it sides with wealth and power while claiming that it has all the answers to the ultimate questions of life.

The second problem with Kalb's article is that his conservatism becomes comparable with how Martin Luther King Jr saw the West when he spoke against the Vietnam War (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm   ):

The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

With the way Kalb writes about the left in the article above, could we not easily substitute the word 'conservative' for the word 'Western.' And if so, don't conservative who would agree with Kalb join him as he speaks just like the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying spoke (see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18%3A9-14&version=NIV)? When we consider all of the violence that has been visited on others in the name of Christ, can conservatives who believe they are the vanguards for Christianity honestly believe that they have everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them while maintaining a significant degree of mental health?

Finally, when we talk about the left and human nature, aren't also dealing with how we should share society with others? The Conservative answer to that question is that we must share society as having a privileged status that entitles them to exercise some degree of supremacy over others. But how does such a self- image not promote violence?

But we might also want to question the conservative grasp of reality. For isn't their emphasis on limited government merely code for saying that they want to elect a government they can ignore. In addition, doesn't their emphasis on limited government carry with it the idea that when human nature can contain such vast amounts of greed, that those with the most wealth and power require the least accountability? Isn't such an idea contradicted by history?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 1, 2017

Oct 31

To Kevin DeYoung and his blogpost on celebrating the Reformation and what it has brought. He also acknowledged challenge brought by the Reformation and today’s world. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

One of the challenges not mentioned above is that of removing the stumbling blocks that sinful acts done and positions taken in the name of Christ have provided. In our nation alone we have the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land and the harsh persecution and oppression of Blacks pursued in various forms done by many in the name of Christ. Or we have our nation's seemingly carte blanche support for Israel as it practices a brutal occupation against the Palestinians and that support is promoted by many religiously conservative Christians as being biblical. Or we have the religiously conservative Christian support for the exploitation that has occurred because of our Capitalist economic, this is especially true with today's form of Capitalism called 'Neoliberalism.' Europe's empires and wars, along with America's previously mentioned sins, have played significant roles in ushering in Post Modernism. For Post Modernism makes a strong historical case for rejecting the metanarratives provided by faith, even the Christian faith.
If we are serious about checking today's growing secularization, we have to acknowledge our past faults and sins noting that because of time and the extent of our wrongs, we can't fix what was already done or make restitution for it. That makes us beggars for mercy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Arthur Versluis and his blogpost extolling a conservative, Jeffersonian approach to relying on a smaller Federal government. This article appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I see two problems with this article. First, there is the proof by example attempt when arguing against the Hamilton model. Just because the Hamilton model has eventually produced what we have today doesn't mean that centralization always fails.
The second problem I see is that, for the most part, the evaluation of government is done by size alone. I've constantly argued that government is like love, size doesn't matter, fidelity does. The writer of this article acknowledges that  some projects require the assistance of larger entities than local government. So in some areas, the need for a good sized government is necessary. And that should apply to the federal government as well as state governments.

Where government has gone astray is not necessarily in size, but in representation. We have two ways of representing people by location. But what is absent, especially in the era of big money politics, is the representation by vocation. So what if all the states have two ways of being represented in government decisions. If the demographics of those representations draw on a limited population based on select vocations, then fewer people will be represented and those who are will tend to be those who have wealth and thus power. Limiting federal government does not limit power. Rather, limiting government can conveniently enable government to abdicate its responsibilities to private sector elites and we will get the same results as we get when corporations are able to buy representatives as mentioned in the article above.

Since Versluis mentioned Chomsky and his opposition to the centralization of government through the military industrial state, we should add that this severely imbalanced representation in government can start to be challenged when we allow workers to run their places of work rather than owners. And the first place this would be good to at least partially implement is in publicly owned companies where shareholders often act like dictatorial slumlords. And Europe's different implementations of codetermination show that we don't have to take all-or-nothing approaches at worker-run workplaces.

After increasing worker control over the workplace, we would still need to restructure our government to fix many of the current problems. That restructuring should not focus on size but on representation so that people from all walks of life, as well as all locations, are well represented. The idea of soviets that would eventually lead to either another legislative branch of the government or a revamped  the House of Representatives could increase representation of all Americans as opposed to just the representation that the wealthy have been able to purchase for themselves.

However, one other concern is important. That is the general ethical standard or moral code of the people also needs to change. We need to become a more person-oriented society where people are counted as being more important than gadgets, profits, and property rights. Without that, we are condemned to not only the racism, militarism, and materialism that King warned against, but an unfaithful and, perhaps, big government that is necessary to feed the appetites of those with wealth and who profit from racism, militarism, and materialism.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that introduces a paper on how the Church should approach wealth creation. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The relationship between wealth creation and the Church is oversimplified in the approach listed above. For wealth creation is portrayed as a whole pie rather than merely a slice of a larger pie. Thus, the emphasis on wealth creation as encouraged above, will focus on a financial bottom-line approach to creating and distributing wealth despite the concerns expressed for the poor and a fair wealth distribution. And without government's help, the Church, at best, will be impotent in making sure that the bottom-line doesn't become the only criteria in evaluating methods of wealth creation. The not at best scenarios have their historical precedents in the pre-revollutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain where the Church sided with wealth and power.

We need to see wealth as a piece fitting in a larger puzzle that describes how we will share society with each other. The relationships between people must take priority over any financial bottom line. If it does not, we will still have a thing-oriented society as described by Martin Luther King Jr. And for as long as we have a thing-oriented society, we will be plagued with racism, militarism, and materialism.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 19, 2017

July 12

To R. Scott Clark and his blogposts (they will be listed below, the comment below was in response to the part 2 link) that answers the charges on whether there is gender apartheid and toxic masculinity in the Presbyterian and Reformed churches. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Part 1—
https://heidelblog.net/2017/07/gender-apartheid-and-toxic-masculinity-in-naparc-1/

Part 2—
https://heidelblog.net/2017/07/gender-apartheid-and-toxic-masculinity-in-naparc-2/

There are some flaws in the two articles Clark has written about 'Gender Apartheid' and 'Toxic Masculinity.' The first error reveals more about Clark's thinking patterns than the argument he presents. By describing gender as being a grammatical characteristic only, which he does in part 1, he ignores the fact that gender can have multiple definitions. Certainly gender is used as a grammatical category. But it is also used identify one's sexual state (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender). Clark's approach to defining 'gender' shows a rigidity in his thinking that might affect his logic on this subject in other areas.

Another example of Clark's rigidity is seen in Clark's reaction to the use of the word 'apartheid' by those who use the term 'gender apartheid.' In part 1, Clark discounts these claims because there is certainly no gender apartheid in the Church because there is no government enforced separation  between the genders and oppression of those speaking out that even slightly resemble the apartheid of South Africa. Clark doesn't realize that other forms and degrees of separation can still qualify as apartheid since the definition of word 'apartheid' isn't mystically tied to the status quo state that tragically occurred in South Africa.

Likewise, his reaction to the term 'toxic masculinity' is to say that the term seems to be a grievance against being a boy or a man. In the light of what was written before, we should note that he does acknowledge that there are multiple legitimate ways of being a man.

The second flaw in Clark's argument here started in part 1 and continues through to part 2. Clark wants to use definitions only to answer the charges made. Though he doesn't use definitions to consider whether sexism or oppression of women exists in the Presbyterian and Reformed churches, , he acknowledges the possibility of that occurring, he does use definitions only to deduce that neither gender apartheid or toxic masculinity exist. And using his rigid definitions of both 'gender' and 'apartheid,' along with his doctrinal view of both men and women tells him that these charges are false.
The better way to handle these charges is not just to define the different biblical roles there are for men and women, but to survey the women in the Presbyterian and Reformed churches to see what degree of agreement, if any, they have with those making the charges. The over reliance on definitions and theology to define what reality people are and are not experiencing is one of the strongest temptations that we in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches face because of our reliance on doctrine to settle these disputes. Thus, we often skip over asking people what they experience when solving problems or answering questions. That is what Clark has done here. Rather than propose that we ask the women of these churches about how they experience and see things, he has answered the charges by applying logic and rigid thinking to definitions to describe what is reality.
Thus, the charges that Clark is responding to will not only go unanswered, they will be unexamined  because instead of including the experiences of other women in the Presbyterian and Reformed churches, Clark sees answering the charges as an exercise in logic. And perhaps, ironically, such an exercise by a man to charges made by women could be another example of gender apartheid and toxic masculinity.

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

July 13

To Russell Moore and his blogpost commenting on how we should react to a Christian teacher who now accepts homosexuality as a Biblically acceptable practice. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Two points here.  First, Russell Moore provides a wonderful example of how to disagree with a fellow Christian on an important topic. He shows compassion and a recognition of the other person's strengths while remaining firm on his Biblical view of the subject. If only all disagreements by Christians with fellow Christians and others would be made this way.

Second, we need to recognize two kinds of stress lines that cause Christians to make an unbiblical choice on how to think about an issue: necessary stress lines and unnecessary stress lines. The necessary one has to do with acknowledging whether a practice or way of thinking is sinful. The unnecessary one has to do with unnecessarily trying to insist that society make the biblical stand the law of the land. When it comes to homosexuality, the unnecessary stand consisted of opposing equality including same-sex marriage in society. No doubt that homosexuality, like all sexual practices outside of a monogamous, heterosexual marriage, cannot be tolerated in any church that follows the Scriptures. But what in the NT requires that we oppose equality for the LGBT community in society including same-sex marriage? The association of preaching God's Word about homosexuality was made with trying to marginalize the LGBT community in society by those opposing the legalization of same-sex marriage. Such was part of an effort to marginalize the LGBT community in society. Knowing that trying to marginalize the LGBT community in society was wrong, some have felt compelled to make compromises on what the Bible says about homosexuality.

We Christians need to identify the unnecessary stress lines that we might be creating for people when we take stands on public issues. Why? Because it is possible that Jesus would call our unnecessary stress lines 'stumbling blocks.' For unnecessary stress lines do function as a kind of stumbling block.

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

July 18

To George W. Rutler and his blogpost praising Trump’s speech in Poland that praised the West for democracy and the advancements it has achieved. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

In all of this bravado about the ideal West, there is a lack of awareness of its faults. And thus, self-praise seems quite natural, but, then again. believing that one's own group is special is normal. And with that self-praise comes an obliviousness to double standards. For example, when a socialists revolution overthrew a US supported dictator in Nicaragua. the Reagan administration supported terrorist actions to overthrow that government, to the tune of being convicted by the World Court, because of proximity that such a revolution was to the US. At the same time, the US, through NATO, broke an agreement that then President George H.W. Bush made with Mikhail Gorbachev over the reunification of Germany when NATO and its troops moved East of Germany. Gorbachev wrote about that (pg 308-309 in The New Russia):

The agreement on the final settlement with Germany stated that no additional NATO troops would be deployed on the territory of the former GDR, and neither would weapons of mass destruction. That meant that NATO's military infrastructure would not move eastward.

The decision to expand NATO, taken after the breakup of the Soviet Union, was contrary to the spirit of those undertakings, as I have repeatedly pointed out when parrying baseless accusations. The main problem was that the policy of the leaders of NATO harboured a real threat, and not only to Russia. There was a danger that, half a century after the start of the Cold War, the world could be plunged into something analogous.

The expansion of NATO fundamentally undermined the European modus vivendi established by the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in 1975.

So NATO has, for a while, had troops on Russia's border and acts as if that should be of no concern to Russia itself. But in the 1980s, the Reagan Administration supported terrorist attacks in Nicaragua because of the threat that its socialist revolution posed to the US because of the proximity of that revolution to the US border. In addition, our lack of awareness sees no problem for Russia to have western troops in bordering countries despite the fact that Russia has suffered catastrophic losses from previous Western invasions.
Our western lack of self-awareness is also evident in how Trump spoke about the threat posed by terrorism conducted by some Islamic extremists. For the US has never been viewed as a beacon of freedom and democracy by many in the Arab world. And that view of the US has been well-known to previous Presidents going all the way back to the days of Eisenhower. For knowledge of those complaints dates back to the 1950s where the complaints were about American support for current dictators and its opposition to Arab nationalism for the sake of its interest in Middle East oil (see https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12/d5 ). Greece learned this lesson in the late 1960s when it looked like a democratic election could produce a leftist leader. America stepped in and replaced the democratic process with the installation of a military dictatorship.

Whether we travel to southern Europe, the Middle East, the Far East, South America, or Central America, America's use of dictators and atrocities contradicts its claims of being for democracy. We should remember that US once supported Osama Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein. It also supported dictators before they were overthrown like Batista in Cuba, Somoza in Nicaragua. and Marcos in the Philippines. It once supported Noriega in Panama. And it helped install and supported Pinochet.
Thus when Stawrowski, who is cited by Rutler in this article, said that there are those in the West who recognize the value of Graeco-Roman culture, he could inadvertently be correct. For both Athens and Rome had empires. And while life in the empires could be sweet, that was not the case for those who were not club members. And we should also note that when Stawrowski complains about those in the west who want a democracy of elites, that President Trump himself has further established such a democracy through his cabinet appointments and executive orders that are attacking the regulatory function of the government. And the purpose of the regulatory function of the government is to protect the environment, workers, and consumers from abusive practices conducted by businesses owned by private sector elites--we should also note that conservatives are slow to recognize the existence of such elites.

Trump being applauded by the Polish people while receiving low approval rates in the US is not an example of a prophet receiving honor from anywhere but home. Rather, the approval of Trump by the Polish people can be explained by the theory of relativity. For Trump looks much better to the Polish people than Putin does. And that is despite the fact that Trump has expressed admiration for tyrants like Putin, Kim Jong-un, and Duterte.

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

To Tim Keller, Russell Moore, and Kevin DeYoung as the blogpost consists of a recording of their conversation on religious liberty and its transcript. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.

There are 3 points that I think are overlooked when we Christians talk about religious liberty. The first issue is a Christian issue. That is that once we call ourselves Christians, whatever we do and whatever position or cause we take, we associate with the Gospel. That should give all of us for pause because, at best, all of us have a mixed record  in term of representing the Gospel. And if a mixed record is at best, we know that none of us gives a spotless or near perfect record for honoring the Gospel. What causes the Gospel to be dishonored is when we don't fully respect the religious liberty of others.

The second point that is overlooked asks us Christians to look outside of ourselves and our own world. That second point is that we have to determine how we want to share society with others. And by others, I mean all kinds of unbelievers. Will we try to share society with others as equals or will we seek some degree of supremacy in society by assuming or seizing a privileged place with the legislation we promote? Seeking a privileged place is seen when our religious views control the laws of the land in ways that give us Christians privileges and a ruling place over the rest of society. Note that whatever way we decide to share society with others, we will be associating that with the Gospel. If we seek to protect the religious rights of others, that will be associated with the Gospel. And here we should note that what many Christians forget is that homosexuality and the right to marry someone of the same sex belongs to the religions of some people. So if we try to pass legislation against homosexuality or same-sex marriage or fail to pass legislation that protects the the equality of the LGBT community, we have associated those actions with the Gospel.

Third, we need to be aware of how our actions, positions, and causes affect others. If we refuse to offer business services to those in the LGBT community or to same-sex weddings, how does it affect others? Too many times, because we seek to wear our religion on our sleeves, we don't consider how our conscientious object can hurt others. That is because we are too focused on ourselves.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 29, 2017

March 21

To Collin Hansen and his blogpost review of Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option in the light of Trump’s Presidency. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.


I haven't read his book but I have read some of Dreher's articles on the Benedict Option. The weakness I find with his approach which should have some bearing on how we agree with his approach or react to what he sees is that he believes that Christians should maintain a privileged place in society resulting in some degree of Christian supremacy over culture and society. This supremacy, historically speaking, has led to the marginalization of many people and that marginalization has not just been based on race. It is good that Hansen brought up past racism. But other bases for marginalization include economic class, religion, and sexual orientation and identity.

If we religiously conservative Christians could only be content with sharing society with others as equals rather than as being treated as a privileged group, we could see that today's culture wars are both unnecessary and harmful for all involved.

So the real question here goes to Dreher's analysis of culture and the presuppositions he carries in analyzing culture. For if we Christians want to have some degree of supremacy in controlling culture, then Dreher's analysis and solution have some legitimacy even though it causes Christians to appear like children who take their games home from friends because they lost in those games. But if we focused on sharing society with others as equals, especially with those from the LGBT community, then the only need we would have to address is to apologize for the how we have wronged the LGBT community in the past and ask about what measures must we take to address those wrongs prior to the pendulum hitting us in the face from its reversing direction. And we don't have to compromise on what the Scriptures say about sexuality and marriage to apologize.

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

The comment below is currently listed as being under moderation even though comments submitted later have been posted. Please continue to check the Gospel Coalition blogpost to see if the comment is still not posted.

To Kevin deYoung and his blogpost that claims that those in need as portrayed in Jesus’s parable of the sheep and the goats refers to fellow Christians only. This appeared in then Gospel Coalition website

But the charge to love one’s neighbor, according to the Good Samaritan parable, means that we must show charity to all who are vulnerable who come our way. And in an age of technology-enabled connectedness and governments that are more accountable to its people, then our neighbors include more and more people and thus opposing our government from caring for the vulnerable is to make Cain’s rhetorical question to God the basis for our political ideology.

IN addition, we should note the original definition of stakeholder before we oppose government as it tries to help those in need.


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

March 22

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Andrew Sullivan on how intersectionality has become a religion. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

With how the Bible describes our sinfulness, I don't see any problem with considering the validity of concepts Sullivan associates with intersectionality. We know that identity-based oppression is a fact of history and life. And the only ones who should feel threatened by such ideas are those who cherish their association with privileged groups. They are often described by the OT prophets as those who either neglect or oppress the vulnerable. So certainly those who are privileged should be challenged on either their active participation in or silent complicity with oppressing other groups.

Where intersectionality has become a religion according to Sullivan is not necessarily in the concepts they espouse, but in their response to those who promote opposing ideas. At the speaking event Sullivan described in his article, some of those who adhere to intersectoinality not only prevented a controversial speaker, Charles Murray, from speaking, the manner in which they shut down the event reminded Sullivan of a religion. And that should not surprise us in today's world of  highly insular, ideological groups. It's the insularity that, more than anything else, contributes to a self-righteous intolerance by and even the religiosity of many of today's ideological groups.

What failed to be mentioned in the quote above is how Sullivan describes Trump as being just as much an enemy of truth as those who both adhere to intersectionality and disrupted the speaking event that Sullivan described. We should note that Sullivan commented on how Trump too disregards any facts that challenge his ideology. And it is here that Sullivan ties together those who disrupted the speaking event with Trump. For he states that neither side allows for any facts to exist which challenge their own orthodoxies. Thus, from different ideological perspectives, those who believe in intersectionality and Trump himself mimic each other in how they respond to challenges. They mimic each other not necessarily by tactics used but by only allowing for any reality that challenges their ideologies.

So the question becomes why does this blogpost only quote Sullivan when he describes intersectionality and not Trump?

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

March 24

To Bruce Ashford and his blogpost review of a book by David Koyzis on making idols out of our politics. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.


Two points to make here. Being a socialist, I felt that socialism was misrepresented that was because it was treated as a monolith based on one of its oldest models. We should note that many who have thought about and promoted socialism since Marx, realize that Socialism existed before Marx only he added some particular flavors to it, have some different views than his. Some have followed the Trotsky/Stalin division though I am not sure whether that is the best way to describe that division. Others have taken away the utopian and there are those who have minimized Socialism's materialism while add to that its relational aspects such as seen in the promotion of various degrees of worker control at the workplace and in government. While some want to define socialism around a particular ideology, others focus on socialism as a practice. BTW, when the following revolves around materialism, we could easily say that socialism and capitalism are two sides of the same materialist coin. Both seek a relative or absolute utopia based on the distribution of goods.

And though I can't speak for liberals, conservatives, and nationalists because of how I saw socialism oversimplified, my suspicion is that liberals, conservatives, and nationalists might feel the same misrepresentation of their pet ideologies due to oversimplification that I experienced when read what was said in the above article about socialism.

There is one point I agree with article about though I will put that agreement in my own words. The more ideological we are, the more prone we are to make our political approach into an idol. And how idolatrous we are in our political ideologies can be measured not just in how it changes our relationship with and view of God, but in how we treat others as well. The more we demonize others and think of our own group as having everything to teach and nothing to learn from others, the more our political ideologies have become our idols.

BTW, the line above that says everything to teach and nothing to learn is adapted from a Martin Luther King Jr. line. And I mention that because as Ashford cites the author he is reviewing, David Koyzis, he replicates a King practice that is suggested, if not implied, by resisting the urge to make any political ideology into an idol. That is, as King noted, from comparing America's Capitalism with Russia's Communism, both had unique contributions to make and unique flaws to correct. Thus, we should work with all political ideologies to develop hybrids that emphasize the strengths of each ideology.

But something else has to be said to us religiously conservative Christians. We have to recognize that society is not the Church. And thus, we have evaluate how we should share society with others prior to working with those who adhere to other ideologies in shaping society. For the more we religiously conservative Christians presume a privileged place where we demand some degree of supremacy over others in determining society's laws and mores, the more we will appear to others as those who have made their pet political ideologies into idols appear to us. That is the more we will come across to unbelievers as those who have everything to teach and nothing to learn. In contrast to that, the more we strive to share society with unbelievers as equals, the more we will naturally exhibit the humility Ashford writes about at the end of his article.

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

March 25

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost about how he grew up as a racist but was converted and now sees some of the reactions against the traditions and beliefs of Western Civilization as being racist and, in some people, ethno-massochistic. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

On the one hand, I respect the personal sharing Pearce did in this article. On the other hand, one doesn't have to be a White Supremacist to be a racist. Racism exists on a continuum. Though growing up in an all white neighborhood for most of my youth, I never became a "White Supremacist." But after reflecting on my college days, I realize that I was what I call a passive racist back then. It's not that I was an aggressive racist, but I had racist views stemming from ignorance and that governed how I interpreted and reacted to Black Americans at college. Hopefully I've fully corrected that but I have too much of a conflict of interest to objectively evaluate myself here.

And though we shouldn't believe that all White men were White Supremacists when looking at the history of Western Civilization, but that isn't the issue. We should realize that racism permeated the Western Civilization from its empires and colonialism to its practice of slavery and slave trading, to its ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples from different lands, to its ethnocracy from the assumption of racial privilege which returns us to White Supremacy though such can be a softer version of White Supremacy than how we usually think of it..

However, we need to understand that what could be called an overreaction to the racism, which Pearce has noted, that is so much a part of almost every aspect of Western Civilization is not racist. Btw, I am calling the banning or burning of books or the total rejection of Western Civilization an overreaction. Rather, it is rooted in an all-or-nothing thinking approach to an outcome-based truth system that simply says if a belief system has produced any abusive behavior, then the belief system is totally false. This kind of reaction is what we see in phobias that are the result of suffering traumas rather than any ethno-masochism. For this kind of reaction is more directed at culture than race. So what we are seeing there is simply the foundation of Post Modernism with its rejection of historical metanarratives because of much of the fruit of those metanarratives. Thus, the supremacy sought in Post Modernism is found in its total rejection of and, by some, its attempts to cleanse ourselves of the metanarratives of Modernism and Pre Modernism rather than in any reactive racism.

And trying to tie racism to Marxism is done pejoratively here. Such is a set up for establishing the supremacy of one's non-Marxist traditions of thought while no specifics are provided to establish the alleged association. But where we do see supremacy showing its ugly face is when a group, whether that group is based on cultural identity, ideology, economic class, race, national identity, sexual orientation, religion, and so forth believes that it cannot afford to share society as equals with those who are different in a diverse society.

And this returns us to the beginning. Whereas Pearce has gone through quite a personal transformation that merits much respect, he seems to overstate his case about being cleansed from supremacist ways of thinking. But for that matter, who has been totally cleansed of all kinds of supremacist ways of thinking? We can find out by how willing we are to share society with others as equals. And we can only share society with others as equals when, using the phraseology of Martin Luther King Jr., we reject the notion that our own group has everything to teach others and have nothing to learn from them.

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

To Devin Ryan and his blogpost claiming that it is time for Russia and the others to bury Lenin rather than allowing his body to still be displayed in the Kremlin. This burying of Lenin would cut all favorable associations with him. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

We need to realize that some conflicts consist of evil vs evil. Such was the case when Lenin and the Bolsheviks hijacked the Russian Revolution. The first Revolution saw a provisional government overthrow the Tsar at that time. The provisional government then failed because it followed the will of the capitalists who wanted Russia to continue to fight in WW I. It also saw the Capitalists as having control of the nation. Thus, the conditions that led to the February Revolution of 1917 continued and that led to the October Revolution. We should note that during Russia's pre-revolutionary times, the Church supported the Tsars and the status quo. Though I am unaware of who the Church supported during the reign of the Provisional Government, it opposed the Socialists. Now while Lenin denounced religion, other socialists, like Rosa Luxemburg, called on the Russian Church to support the Socialists for everyone's good.

At the same time, we should note that Socialists like Rosa Luxemburg denounced Lenin's regime calling it a bourgeoisie dictatorship. Others have said that he simply practiced his own version of how the Tsars ruled. Other Socialists were cleansed from the scene by a power hungry Lenin who felt threatened by diversity and dissent. His reach for power included disbanding the soviets and Russia's Constituent Assembly. Other Socialists supported his hijacking because of the Counter Revolution and the crises that followed the Revolution. In essence, those who hijacked the Revolution were Bolsheviks. And thus what we have here is a complex picture of Socialism rather than a simple one that serves as a basis for the pejorative use of the word 'socialism.'

What we saw in Stalin was Lenin-gone-wild while what we saw in Lenin was Stalin-lite.  In either case, there was no proletariat dictatorship that was essential to what Marx taught. So it would be difficult to claim that under Lenin or Stalin, Marxist Socialism failed since it wasn't practiced. It wasn't until you get to Gorbachev who, btw rejected Stalin but embraced what Lenin taught, that you begin to see the Socialist concern for democracy being put on display in Russia. Should note that while not practicing Socialism, Lenin still tended to espouse Socialist beliefs and some just rationalize his totalitarian rule because of the crises that Russia was experiencing back then.

But returning to Lenin, both the Church and Lenin were on the wrong side of history. The Church was on the wrong side because of its support of those with wealth and power, including support for the Tsar, prior to the Revolution. Lenin was on the wrong side of history as he replaced one dictatorship with another. Thus, if we are going to cut all sentimental ties to Lenin, which is why he would be buried, the same goes for the Tsars. The result of both burials would be that bolsheviks and many from the Russian Orthodox Church would be ideologically orphaned.


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

March 27

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the role of Christian journalism and how that is carried out at The Gospel Coalition. This appeared on the Gospel Coalition website.

The crux of many conflicts among Christians and between Christians and nonChristians is what is meant by a 'restoration of creation'? Does it mean that we start to impose Christian values and Church laws on society? And we should also look at the why of this restoration. Does that why revolve around us and the enjoyment of our new life?

Those are pertinent questions because we are sharing that creation with nonChristians. And what  happens when we overreach in that restoration of creation is that we start to use society as a supplemental disciplinary arm of the Church. We know from the Scriptures that unbelievers are not subject to Church discipline. But if we try too hard to assist God in restoring creation, won't unbelievers become obstacles and then we will try to use civil laws to remove those obstacles? And thus, we will be using society as a supplemental disciplinary arm of the Church on those who are not subject to Church discipline.

The most pertinent question that involves the third point of Keller's three-point outline is: How should we Christians share society with others? Does God want his people to claim a privileged place in society so we can enjoy places of supremacy in order for Him to use us to restore creation? Or should we share society with others as equals and work side by side with them in creating a society with equality and justice? In addition, based on that third point, must the world revolve around us Christians because we are God's people? Those are all pertinent questions for any Christian journalist or ministry because the answers to those questions will determine what is advocated and what is described by those doing Christian journalism.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 8, 2017

February 1

To Kevin DeYoung, Collin Hansen, and Trevin Wax and their blogpost that plays a recording of their discussion on when we should use the law to legislate Christian morality. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

What I see is missing from the discussion is a good definition of democracy and our place as Christians in society. Democracy has sometimes been reduced to its political mechanisms, which is what I think was done in this discussion. However, the literal definition of democracy is that the people rule. And there are certain egalitarian overtones in that statement so that when a subset of people seize power, even if its by using democratic mechanisms, and rule over all other groups of people, we don't have the people ruling, we have a subset of people ruling and thus we don't have a democracy. Jeff Halper, an Israeli activist and founder of the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions, has provided this helpful distinction between what is called democracy and what he called an ethnocracy when the subset of people who seize power belong to some kind of ethnic classification in a diverse society (see page 74 of his book An Israeli In Palestine).

Second, when examining our role in society, the question we most often fail to ask is this: How will we Christians share society with others? Will we share society as those who seek to have privileges and thus control over all other groups or will we share society as equals? If we share as the first group, then aren't we flying in the face of both Democracy and Jesus's warning not to 'lord it over' others?

Third, there is a problem with prohibiting same-sex marriage based on natural law and/or the belief that marital law should revolve around supporting what is best for human flourishing. Regarding natural law, we should note that homosexuality exists in 1,500 species and its existence is beneficial to the species. Regarding what is best for human flourishing, should the law only allow what is deemed best or can it allow for all other options that do not violate the rights of or harm others?

Finally, the statements made about how Christianity was not the only frame of reference for prohibiting same-sex marriage was rather shallow. For one thing, the thinking of some Christian churches regarding same-sex relationships and marriage has changed. Also, there have been societies that have allowed same-sex marriage and other same-sex living relationships. In addition, the history of Western Civilization has been up until recently dominated by what would be considered today as conservative forms of Christianity. And that Judaism and Islam also prohibit same-sex marriages does not imply that we don't have freedom of religion issues in prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Yes, laws are there to protect us and that can help change us. But when one group gains control of the government to force its way of life on a diverse society, then laws can become oppressive on various levels to those who do not belong to the group that is in control. And if we Christians are that group, then again what we are doing is flying in the face of both Democracy and Jesus's prohibition not to be like the Gentiles who like to 'lord it over' others. We also unnecessarily provide stumbling blocks to the hearing of the Gospel for many a nonChristian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To David Platt and his blogpost on how we should respond to the Refugee Crisis. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Regarding the exhortation to act justly, does that imply that we should demand that our government cease from all actions that further injustice and cause more and more people to become refugees? After all, we are not living in the Roman Empire that Apostles lived in; we live in a Democracy where we have the right and responsibility to tell our government what to do.

BTW, one more point should be made. Both the Syrians and the Jordanians demonstrated some of the greatest generosity ever seen by how they took in Iraqi refugees who felt they had to flee their nation because of the US invasion. How is it that we who believe in the Gospel and live in the richest nation in the world should  show less generosity and compassion than what the Syrians have already shown others?

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

February 2

To Joe Carter and his blogpost interview with Matthew Soerens as they talk about Trump’s Refugee policy. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.

There are some good points made in this article. However, like immigration policies, there is one missing factor in Trump's latest EO that is a part of our refugee policies. That missing factor are US policies that create refugees. We should remember, or research, that many refugees were created by the US invasion of Iraq. The people of Jordan and Syria, nations that do not have our economic resources, put Americans to shame in how they helped Iraqi refugees during this time.

We should note that most of the nations in the ban are nations that have been attacked by the US--some of them saw the US overthrow their governments. And now, having created or significantly contributed to the refugee problem, we are closing our doors to these refugees to protect ourselves, we display a dangerous, that is dangerous to both ourselves and the world, lack of awareness regarding our actions, especially in how we use our military.

If we want to limit the number of refugees coming into the US, then we must adjust your policies so that we are not creating refugees.

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

Feb 3

To Dwight Longenecker and his blogpost that claims that the “left” and media response to Trumps ban is over the top. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

It is true that the more bullets nonconservatives fire at Trump, the more support they instigate for him. Such is the nature of political tribalism in our nation. However, the hysteria about immigration and refugee policies belongs with the Trump Administration and those supporting the ban. To say that a ban on predominantly Muslim countries is not a Muslim ban is premature. To say that the ban targets potential terrorists overlooks details. The only Muslim terrorists who have attacked America on American soil are those who come from nations not included in the ban. In addition, since 1980, around 3 million refugees have been admitted to the US and none of them have conducted any acts of terrorism (see https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-should-christians-think-about-trumps-refugee-policy ). The frenzied rush of support for the ban also ignores the vetting process in terms of who does the vetting and how long the vetting process takes place.

Also, I have not seen religiously conservative Christians or other supporters of Trump propose that we tie foreign policies to immigration and refugee policies. We should note that for the majority of the nations on the ban, they have suffered attacks by the US military and/or been targeted for regime change by our government. The instability caused by these actions is a major reason why we have as many refugees in the world as we have. And it is more than just a cruel joke to both pursue foreign policies that significantly increases the number of refugees while reducing the number of refugees who are allowed to enter our nation.

Finally, why not ban all immigrants and refugees from Israel and allowing exceptions for persecuted religious minorities while insisting that such a ban is not a Jewish ban? Trump's ban is not a Muslim ban? How can we say that such a statement comes from hysteria when part of Trump's campaign included a promise to institute a Muslim ban along with the lack of need for a ban while Trump institutes kind of the ban that he has?Also, Hillary is no leftist; she is a liberal Democrat. As such, she supports capitalism, Leftists are anti-capitalists.


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

Feb 7

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on why Christians should support school vouchers. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Here is the problem with supporting school vouchers. Some schools are already underfunded, vouchers will add to that problem. As public schools get less revenue, they will perform more poorly and the system will collapse. And there will be no schools that will be able to take up the slack because for profit charter schools will not have the resources to provide for the demand should public schools collapse.

It seems that the conservative approach to eliminating government programs, such as education, is to under fund them so that they will under perform. In the end, what eliminating federal programs does is to free businesses from having to meet their social responsibilities since businesses, especially successful ones, are the primary benefactors of these programs. It is all done in the name of maximizing profits. The Scriptures refer to that ethic as the love of money. And the Scriptures are quite clear in declaring that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And history is quite clear in pointing out that when the Church sides with wealth, it often sides with tyranny.