How Can America Be A Christian Nation?

 A national Christian prayer event occurred in our nation's capital this past weekend. The basic concern of the event was about how to rededicate our nation to Christ. Such an event sounds harmless enough, but was it really?

Rededicating the nation to Christ meant that those in the event want our nation to return to being what it used to be: a Christian nation. And so, the event was really about Christian Nationalism.

How was our nation a Christian nation? It certainly wasn't the aim of The Constitution. We should notice that not only was there an absence of any statements in that document which affirms America being a Christian nation, there are a couple of statements that contradicts such a notion. In addition, the Constitutional debates indicate that basing the nation's federal government on any religion was something to be avoided at all costs.

But what we should note, however, is that in several of the state constitutions, were statements that endorsed some form of Christianity as a state religion. In addition, we should note that in terms of culture and the religious self-image of many of the people, we could call our nation a Christian nation.

There is something else we should note, however. That our nation's Christian self-image was due to demographics. That is that, because of Christendom, the demographics were so affected so that many people identified as Christians. And this is an important point because our nation's religious demographics ain't what they used to be. And so how close can should we return to the past.

There is something else to note. That if we claim that America was a Christian nation at its beginning, then we Christians own some unsavory history from the past. That dubios history revolves around racism. Our nation was at least partially based on racism. It's in our early practices such as race-based slavery and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land. It was in the federal laws governing citizenship.  They stated that only free white men could become citizens of the U.S. And even after Black men could become citizens, which was after the Civil War, we had Jim Crow and Redlining among other practices. 

And so if America was to return to the good old days, would we also include a return to the racism of the past? Or would we employ new forms of racism? We should note that we don't call the current move toward Christian Nationalism in America, we call it 'White Christian Nationalism.' 

There are two ways by which we could call America a Christian nation today. The first way is if the majority of Americans were actual Christians. The problem with that way is that we cannot manipulate people into becoming Christians. Making a person a Christian is the work of the Holy Spirit and we have no control over the Spirit. And so we have no control over making the majority of Americans Christians.

And so the second way is to change our nation's laws so that they resemble Church laws to a significant degree. And though there are Church laws that are already a part of the laws of our land, not all are.

The above has always been a challenge for the Church. What Church laws should also be laws governing society? And this is where it gets sticky for Christian Nationalists and society because not all agree on the same set of laws. Do we want so many Church laws to also be a part of the laws the govern society? At what point in instituting Church laws, are we showing privilege to Christianity over other religions? And which Church laws would cause people to violate their own religious practices?

When answering those questions, we should note again that religious demographics ain't what they used to be. That we don't have the Christian consensus in America that once existed. And so we have to then consider the amount of control that we Christians should have to exert over unbelievers to pass and enforce the Church laws that we want to become the law of the land. Such is an important consideration because both Jesus and Peter tell us not to 'lord it over' others.

In addition, the Apostles' approach to fulfilling the Great Commission was through teaching and preaching only. Jesus once said that if people do not accept the preaching of the disciples, that His disciples were to move on. There is also a misreading of the Great Commission as seen below (click here for the reference):

16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated to them. 17 And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

The issue here has to do with the Greek word for 'nations.' For some take that to mean to force each nation to be Christian. The Greek word for nations here is 'ἔθνη.' According to the Greek-English lexicon of Bauer, Arendt and Gingrich, the form of the Greek word there means outsiders. That instead of talking about discipling each nation, the disciples were ordered to preach to those outside their group. And, indeed, the use of the form of the word for nation, 'ἔθνη,' often means outsiders both in the Greek Septuagint, which is the Old Testament in Greek, and in the New Testament. And such an understanding would relieve the pressure to feel compelled to make each nation a Christian nation, since such is not in our control in the first place.  

There is another issue to consider here. The modern movement toward Christian Nationalism promoted by some of my fellow believers in Christ, was given its greatest impetus by the Obergfell decision in 2015. Many Christian ministers and leaders opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage. Some said that it should be prohibited because such would interfere with the flourishing of society. After the decision was announced, many Christian leaders advocated that Christians should take a semi-monastic approach to society, which is they sequestered themselves into groups of like-minded believers, until such a time when they could be assured that society no longer had a negative view of the faith. The Benedict Option was such an example. We should note that Aaron Renn described Christianity as going through 3 stages of acceptance by society. According to him, the negative perception of the Church started in 2014 , which was part of the time when the Obergfell decision was being considered.

That decision recognized a greater equal status for the LGBT community in society. Apparently, many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians then feared that if same-sex marriage was considered equal to heterosexual marriage in society, the property values of marriage would drop. In addition, many of my fellow Christians feared that if society welcomed the LGBT community as equals, that such an acceptance would have a corrupting influence on the Church

But it was also more than the fear of what would happen to heterosexual marriage. With the emergence of the LGBT community from the margins of society came a shock to many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians. Society had changed too much and too quickly for them. Many of my fellow believers no longer recognized the nation in which they were living. And considering how patriotic many of those fellow believers are, they were not just in shock, they were grieving for the loss of what once was. This loss speaks predominantly to white religiously conservative Christians because for many Black fellow believers, what had been also lost over time was Jim Crow culture and laws. It's not that there is no more systemic racism with the current gerrymandering at the expense of representation for Blacks in the House of Representatives serving as just another reminder that systemic racism lives. That is  because the loss of representation for Blacks in the House was not enough of an impediment to stop the current gerrymandering in red  states. It is that even though there was less systemic racism, thing had been changing. In the end, more whites felt negatively about the drastic changes in society.

Christian Nationalism concerns itself with societal laws that affect culture for both unbelievers and believers. What garnered such a high percentage of Evangelical votes for Trump is that he took the side of many religiously conservative Christians, as well as that of Putin (or wannabe Emperor Putintine), in the culture wars. The emergence of the LGBT community from the margins of society created the same reaction in my fellow Christians that the bourgeoisie dictatorship did in Marx. Marx thought that the only way to overthrow the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie was to replace the bourgeoisie dictatorship with a proletariat one. Such was an example of Marx's black-white thinking on that oppression. He never, that I know of, thought that one way of eliminating the oppression by the bourgeoisie was to get the bourgeoisie and proletariat to collaborate together. And so for many of my fellow believers, the appropriatae response to the emergence of the LGBT community from society was to return that community to the margins of society.

An alternative response would be to replace the culture wars with cultural coexistence as equals and then depend on evangelism and other forms of teaching, as well as discipline in the Church only, as ways of fulfilling the Great Commission. Such a dependence seems to be the way of the Apostles to fulfill the Great Commission.

The tragic thing here for the conservative Church in America, this call to some degree of Christian control over society just might be a front for installing an oligarchy. For that seems to be the battle in Europe. That Democracy with equality is being challenged by authoritarianism with hierarchy that take the form of ethnocracy. And not all examples of ethnocracy are religiously based. But regardless of the form, using ethnocracy as a façade appeals to many conservative voters.

And so some leading the charge for Christian Nationalism are using that label to monopolize conservative votes to support oligarchy. And that would make oligarchy a preferable form of governing to Democracy with equality.

Preaching And Politics

Carl Trueman (click here for info) had a previously written an article reposted a couple of years ago on the Modern Reformation website on preaching and politics which seems to becoming more and more relevant today. His primary concern seems to be the pressure that preachers are receiving when it comes to preaching on controversial issues like LGBT issues in particular and political issues in general. In the article, Trueman raises both some good points as well as points that need further examination (click here for the article). 

Some of the good points that Trueman makes include: party politics should be not be a part of preaching, that the job of living the Christian life is not to be popular, and that the whole council of God must be preached including challenges to the idols that exist in society and the churches. In addition, when preaching about sensitive issues, like LGBT issues, Trueman rightly wants preachers to avoid the two extremes of being a jerk in going off on an angry tangent against a given cultural outrage or playing to the crowd in order to avoid offending the congregation.

But, what was for his article, an important point made which should be further examined is the following:

But I am also convinced that the pastor’s first task is to point people to things above; and not to anathematize anyone in his congregation because of matters of earthly politics...

The stakes are simply too high and, Mayor Pete Buttigieg notwithstanding, the current politics of sexual identity are lethal to biblical Christianity.  At its heart, the sexual revolution is not about sex; it is actually about what constitutes the human person and for what purpose, if any, humans exist.  And to fail to make that criticism is to fail to assert a biblical anthropology and thus fatally to undermine the message of the gospel: that God in Christ triumphs over our fallenness; he does not simply affirm us in rebellion.

The problem in the first paragraph is that pastors are not to fix our focus so much on the future that we ignore the moral realities of the day. For example, pastors need to warn us about what are acceptable sexual morals for believers.  Why politics comes into play here is because a significant part of politics deals with moral issues. But unlike sexual moral issues that pastors need to warn us against, the moral issues that politics brings to the table are societal, and thus corporate, moral issues. How are we treating people who are different from us is a foundational issue in the corporate moral issues that politics alerts us to. And though Trueman is right in saying that preachers should not condemn anyone for their earthly politics, preachers should be able to admonish those in their congregation of certain political issues.

And though what Trueman well states in how we should bring up these corporate moral issues, he puts an unnecessary obstacle in the way of Christians who would otherwise treat those in the LGBT community as equals by stating how the politics of today's sex revolution is 'lethal to Biblical Christianity.' On the one hand, today's sex revolution is lethal to the spiritual life of Christians if we follow its call as individuals. 

But the politics of that revolution itself is no more lethal to Biblical Christianity than the politics of the religious plurality is . For though the tenets of both today's sex revolution and the tenets of what other religious faiths teach what is antithetical to the Christian faith, allowing those practices in society in the name of equality is not a threat to the Christian faith. In fact, to insist on full equality for both those of different religious faiths and from the LGBT community is very well consistent with the Christian faith.

So here, we need to distinguish between the moral requirements on the individual Christian from the political moral requirements on Christians as they act as members of society. As individuals, we cannot remain in the Church if we give in to either today's sex revolution or the spiritual teachings of other faiths as they touch on the Trinity and salvation. But the morals promoted in politics are not concerned with what we as individuals believe and act on. The morals promoted in politics address how we will treat fellow members of society who hold to different practices and/or religious beliefs that what we hold to.

Trueman's article provides some very good advice insights. The weakness is found in how he suggests we should view the LGBT community. His weakness is his failure to recognize, in this article, the difference between the individual moral call that the Bible places on those who would call themselves followers of Jesus from the social, and thus corporate, moral call that politics often deals with in promoting full equality for formerly marginalized groups such as the the LGBT community. 

In addition, recognizing someone's right to live or believe differently from how we live or what we believe implies nothing about whether we are affirming what someone does or believes. Just as we can recognize the right of a Muslim to follow Islam without agreeing with what Islam teaches about Christ, we can, and IMO must, recognize the right of those in the LGBT community to practice what they believe is right without agreeing with that practice.

When we understand the history of how the Church has opposed the LGBT community, it has, until recently, never been about the moral practices of the individual. It has always been about how the Church wants society to treat those from that community. 

Unfortunately, for centuries the Church has required that societies marginalize those in the LGBT community. That has caused a phantom conflict of interests for today's religiously conservative Christian who is influenced by Post Modernism. It is a phantom conflict because since it is not a necessary conflict, it is not real. And the conflict of interests says that one must affirm unbiblical sexual practices in order to avoid committing the sin of marginalizing those from the LGBT community. Again, here recognizing someone's right to practice what is unbiblical is conflated with affirming the choice to practice what is unbiblical. Post Modernism, for all of its faults, rightly tells us that such marginalization is wrong. The result of this conflict of interests is that today's religiously conservative Christians are beginning to scuttle biblical sexual mores in order to avoid the sin of persecuting those who are different.

So here, we need to follow Trueman's advice in terms of how we bring up what is morally required of us as members of society. However it seems that Trueman had in mind  how we Christians should react to the LGBT community in mind. What is suggested here is that Christians can't tolerate equality for the LGBT community. But Christians, because of their jobs for example, may not be in the position to do that. So preachers should not condemn believers for their politics. And Trueman is right, we should not condemn each other for differences in politics.

But when it comes to political positions that unnecessarily bring harm to the reputation of the Gospel, while not condemning, preachers need to be able to gently point out what political positions unnecessarily do harm to the reputation of the Gospel.

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

 March 22

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

Carl Trueman's full article can be found at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nancy Guthrie's full article can be found at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 28

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 3, 2022

July 27

To R. Scott Clark and his short article that describes the CDC webpage for those in the LGBTQ community as a taxpayer supported recruitment page for the LGBTQ community. This appeared in Heidelblog

Providing an information webpage that addresses LGBTQ health issues qualifies as recruiting? Or is the above mentioned CDC webpage about LGBTQ health issues being used as a wedge issue by those who would like to manipulate public opinion and work to marginalize the the LGBTQ community?

Clark should visit that page and tell us if he was ever recruited before implying wrongdoing. After all, the Commandment that prohibits bearing false witness against one's neighbors demands that we are careful about what we say about others.

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

August 1

To Rosaria Butterfield and her talk about the lies that the current age is tell us Christians about sexual orientation and gender identity. This was posted in Heidelblog.

Rosaria Butterfield, who is a champion for Biblical sexual values for some religiously conservative Christians simply because of her lesbian past and previously held self-described radical views, spoke on Christianity and both sexual identity and gender orientation. Her talk starts at around the 43 minute mark. Though I agree with many of her views on what constitutes Biblical sexual values, I struggle with what is suggested and even implied by what she says about Christianity and both sexual orientation and gender identity.

First, what is implied by Butterfield's statement that we have codified lies into laws when talking about the legalization of same-sex marriage? Does Butterfield wish to imply that our laws must only be based on the Scriptures? If so, then there goes the freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. If so, then religiously conservative Christianity has set itself as an arch enemy of Democracy. For even if she doesn't intend to say so, Butterfield is implying the need for theonomy. For the laws we have are sometimes based on worldly ideas from people who have traded in what they know about God for lies. That is because society is made up of believers and unbelievers. And the only way to escape those lies is to base all of our laws solely on the Scriptures.

We might ask Butterfield whether she wants us to return to the good old days when homosexual acts were criminalized and  homosexuals could be harassed on or fired from their jobs because of the sexual orientation. If that is what she wants, then she knows much more about heteronormativity than she seems to admit to. I assume here that she opposes the legalization of violence against people because of their sexual orientation even though that was a part of the good old days of heteronomativity. But Butterfield gives a strong impression that those in the LGBT community should not be treated as equals in society. In fact, she gives a strong impression that those in the LGBT community should be harshly marginalized by society. Of course, being harshly marginalized by society is not how she came to faith in Christ.

We must also address what Butterfield says about nature. Why? Because we need to distinguish between nature as God designed it from nature in its current fallen state. We know that nature is in a fallen state because the Bible tells us so. But we can also determine that from observation because homosexuality is practiced in hundreds, if not over 1,000, species--in reality it is bisexuality that is practiced--in contrast to how God designed nature for His creatures. The existence of those who are intersex is also proof that nature was already fallen because nature's original design from Genesis 1 and 2 says that God made us male and female. And though only a small percentage of people are born intersex, we cannot pretend that they do not exist because they are so few. They are people like the rest of us. So while we can see from the Scriptures and nature God's design for us, fallen nature is giving us some opposing opinions.

And so despite what nature tells us on the outside about someone, we really don't know what nature is telling them on the inside. And so we shouldn't assume what nature is telling each person on the inside. Therefore, we should not assume how much one's biological sex influencing a person about their gender identity. At the same time, Butterfield is correct and the LGBT community is wrong in conflating gender identity, which is psychological, with biological sex, which is physical.

Also, what did the SF gay choir want to do to our children according to what they sang as shown in the video? Wasn't it clearly stated that they want to teach them to tolerate those in the LGBT community? They weren't singing about seducing children. In addition, couldn't every para church youth ministry make the same claim that they are coming for our children even though they are coming to teach religion?

The struggle we religiously conservative Christians have is to distinguish what we can't allow and must say in our evangelism and to each other in our churches about sex from what we can allow in and must support in society. To not make that distinction is to imply that the duty for Christians is to base our nation's laws only on the Scriptures. And even there, do the New Testament Scriptures teach us by word or example to impose Biblical sexual mores on society?

Also, repentance is essential. But  we can easily fall into the trap of perfectionism by expecting Christians to fully repent of all their sins. I don't think Butterfield believes that we Christians fully repent of all of our sins. But she does seem to believe that all Christians who struggle with homosexuality and/or gender dysphoria can fully repent of that particular sin.

As we listen to Butterfield speak, which starts around 43 minutes into the video and please listen to her, look to see if there is a certain rigidity in Butterfield's current thinking in her talking about sexual orientation and gender identity. Because if there is such a rigidity, then perhaps Butterfield is employing the same kind of thinking now which she used when she was a lesbian and was a professor with radical views. And thus the only reason why her views are different now, despite using the same kind of thinking, is because she is using a different starting point and different set of assumptions, some that are Scriptural and some that are not.

 

They Are Not Just Attacking Disney

Josh Abbotoy (click here for a bio), like many of today's conservatives, is mad at Disney. The reason for their anger? It is because they believe that Disney is attacking their children by trying not just to sexualize them, but to groom them for membership into the LGBT community. At least that is his claim in a recent article posted in The American Reformer website. The owners of that website seem have an agenda of their own (click here about the website). Abbotoy has a great deal of angst not just over Disney, but from everything that could be associated with the Left (click here for the article). As a result, Abbotoy wants his fellow Southern Baptists to repeat a boycott of Disney and conduct any ethical means to get Disney to repent.

The beginning of Abbotoy's story about Disney starts with Disney's speaking out against what has been known as DeSantis's "Don't Say Gay" bill. Because Disney's opposition to the bill was delayed, Disney contributed millions of dollars to the pro-gay rights group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and to engage in a campaign of their own against DeSantis's bill. To show Abbotoy's objectivity here, he called Disney's contribution to HRC and 'indulgence.' And that gives an indication of how Abbotoy was going to refer to the people, actions, and events in his article.

Next, Abbotoy refers to a leaked video showing that Disney now has an agenda for grooming children to become members of the LGBT community. Abbotoy does not provide a link to this video and so one has to do a little research of their own to find this video. The video was provided to the conservative media by Chris Rufo and the problem with his video is this: they are a series of very short clips of Disney officials talking without providing any context for what was said. This video has play quite a few times on the FOX news programs and has been described as 'damning evidence' by some conservatives. But it is the description of these videos by conservatives, including conservative commentators, not the content of the video clips themselves,  which makes the video clips seem more convincing than they are. For example, several of these conservative commentators make a big deal over the fact that Disney employees will welcome guests by referring to them as 'friends' rather than ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. IMO, if Abbotoy and his conservative friends had to rely on these clips  alone to prove their claim about Disney in court, the case would not even be heard. But that doesn't stop Abbotoy and the conservative commentators from using such scant evidence to greatly inflame the issue.

So Abbotoy, using quotes from a Disney official, accuses Disney of 'queering' its stories and characters. And that has led a host of conservatives to accuse Disney of sexualizing children. But don't they understand that Disney has been sexualizing children for decades starting with Mickey and Minnie kissing and has continued with many of their princess stories that end happily ever after for the princess because they found male partners? But such stories do not count as sexualizing children in contrast to when the presence of gays in society is acknowledged through new Disney children's characters.

Abbotoy then discusses whether Disney is merely reflecting society. He adamantly says 'no' to that possibility but he presents evidence that contradicts his claim. That evidence cites the relatively high percentage of Generation Zers (almost 40%) identifying as fitting in with the LGBT community.

Then Abbotoy tries to unveil the hidden agenda in all of this. That agenda is to start a perpetual revolution that tries to undo all previous standard norms. Yes, that starts with sex and gender norms. But then Abbotoy includes in that revolution opposition to bullying, racism, and critical theory. As a result, Abbotoy complains that Generation Zers have been 'stressed-out' about systemic racism, bigotry against those in the LGBT community, climate change, guns among other issues. And that being stressed out has led to psychological problems. Of course, systemic racism, climate change, mass shootings with guns and such by themselves are understandable causes for stress so one has to wonder what Abbotoy's point is. This is especially true when he picks on Greta Thunberg's work.

Then Abbotoy makes an odd turn. After speaking disparagingly about how the left wants to remake the world, he speaks in glowing terms about religiously conservative Christians themselves are working toward their own definition of utopia for the world. Here we should remember how Os Guinness, a Christian philosopher, has warned us against utopian movements. 

And so Abbotoy concludes that Disney presents a 'clear and present danger,' to borrow a Tom Clancey book title, to children. And we are morally obligated to resist the evils that he perceives Disney is visiting on our children.

Abbotoy then recalls the days of the 1997 Southern Baptist boycott of Disney. And though that boycott did not stop conservatives from losing to the LGBT over its issues back then, he does not blame the boycott. And it is here that we might really get to the beef that Abbott and many other of my fellow religiously conservative Christians have. We lost the culture wars to the LGBT community and we are trying to undo the results--I, myself, prefer culture coexistence to culture wars. And that  is the problem. Many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians hate the idea of sharing society with its culture with those from the LGBT community. It isn't that they want to get rid of them. It is that they want society to punish the LGBT community by marginalizing those in the community for their evil and immorality. Anything less is unacceptable and is seen as a capitulation with evil. 

What Abbotoy, and many conservative Christians, want is to refight and win the culture wars--kind of like how some from the South seem to want to refight and finally win the Civil War. And Abbotoy's article, with its hyperbolized descriptions of the current status quo and of Disney's actions, seeks, IMO, to manipulate his readers. He doesn't describe the current situation or Disney's actions in objective terms. He prefers to be accusatory and overstates his case. In the end, he seeks to enrage his fellow Christians against those who have working for change in how we view the LGBT community and other "woke" issues.

Abbotoy's article does not just reflect a tragically sad state of affairs for how many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians are seeking seize the moment and regain control over society. It reflects a hateful and vengeful side of them as people when having to share society with those with whom they disagree.

Neglecting The Log In One's Own Eye: Conservative Christian Culture Imperialism

 In a recent Mortification of Spin podcast, the hosts, Carl Trueman (click here for a bio) and Todd Pruitt (click here for a very brief bio) address the subject of culture wars. In that podcast, Trueman and Pruitt not only engage in some seslf-congratulatory behavior in the conflict, they, Trueman in particular, equate what should be the Christian view of culture wars with conservatism. But more importantly, they show a complete misunderstanding of what a culture war is. And thus they mistakenly equate culture wars with how one or both sides address the other  (click here for a link to the podcast).

In their podcast, Trueman and Pruitt discuss where the term 'culture war' came from. According to them, the first use of the term was made by Pat Buchanan when he was involved in politics. If memory serves, Buchanan, an authoritarian at heart, warned fellow conservatives of the advances that non-conservatives were making in becoming culturally influential. And thus Buchanan was warning his fellow conservatives that conservatives would be losing control over culture and society. Such a warning provides a context necessary for understanding the culture wars that we are experiencing today. That context involves a concept not mentioned in my hearing or reading; that context is Culture Imperialism.

Here we should note that before the culture wars began, conservatives had a certain sway over culture to the extent of not only having laws that would enforce some of the values promoted by religiously conservative Christians, but society was marginalizing some who didn't follow those values. We could call this time period one of Conservative Christian Culture Imperialism. In particular, many of those values had to do with sexual practices. Homosexuals in particular were one of the whipping boys of  Conservative Christian Culture Imperialism.  But we should note that before the end of the Civil Rights Movement, people of color were often targets of this Conservative Christian Imperialism because of some of the ties between religiously conservative Christianity and white supremacy. And, we can use the word 'Imperialism' rather than 'Dominance' because this dominance was once held to throughout Western Civilization.

What justified this Conservative Christian Culture Imperialism was paternalism. Conservative Christianity claimed that the enforcing of its values was what's best for all societies. And thus Conservative Christianity should have some degree of control over the values society was suppose to promote and practice. So, in other words, this Conservative Christian Culture Imperialism was an exercise in Christian paternalism. And though not using the same terminology, this concept of Christian Paternalism was alluded, by Trueman in particular, as he talked about how Christians need to get the message out about what is good for society.

And so while Trueman and Pruitt seem to be singing the Things Ain't What They Use To Be blues about not only the acceptance of homosexuality and the new approaches to gender identity, Thepy seemed to have forgot, or perhaps favored, the context from which this new acceptance emerged. It arose from Conservative Christian Culture Imperialism and the desire to eliminate, and probably forever prevent, a return of that imperialism that has caused so many abuses and atrocities committed against those from the LGBT community and others.

Here we should note that the efforts to address and correct long standing  social injustices often result in a phobic type reaction to the past so that beliefs and practices that which were accidentally associated with those past injustices are grouped to together with those beliefs and practices that actually contributed to the injustices. Thus the proverbial baby is often tossed out with the bathwater approach is taken. And that is because of the past injustices, a great reluctance or even complete refusal to extend any effort to distinguish between those beliefs and behaviors that were accidentally associated with the injustices from those beliefs and behaviors that actually contributed to those injustices.

While Trueman and Pruitt equate the hostility of one's interaction with those who hold to different cultural values as being part of culture wars, such is not necessarily true. Rather, if we understand culture wars as a certain kind of response to culture imperialism, then the way to avoid culture wars is to resist culture imperialism and work for culture coexistence instead. That instead of seeking to dominate, we look to share culture and society with others as equals.

What culture coexistence for my fellow religiously conservative Christians and those in the LBGT community could look like is that while both sides would have the right to fully and publicly express what their values are, both sides would advocate for full equality in society for those from the other side.

Of course that means that some beliefs could not be promoted. Those beliefs would be those that deny equality for those who hold to other beliefs. Generally speaking, we already do this in terms of religion and call it the freedom of religion. And we point to the 1st Amendment as supplying the grounds for the coexistence of faiths in our nation.

In short, Trueman and Pruitt, though having some justified criticisms of the new enforced  'orthodoxy' regarding gender identity, need to take a different approach to the new orthodoxy. For example, both many religiously conservative Christians and those from the LGBT community have oversimplified the biological sex vs. gender identity conflict by conflating one side with the other. For while one side states because they are the same, one's biological sex, a physical entity, should dictate what one's gender identity, a social-psychological entity, must be, the other side reverses that. We need to adequately readdress that conflict so that neither biological sex nor gender identity are used to override the other. 

We religiously conservative Christians in America and those from the LGBT movement should work for each other's full equality in society. For doing so is to promote culture coexistence. And though I dislike reducing complex issues to binary terms, I'm afraid that the only alternative to culture coexistence is to conduct culture war in order to establish or maintain culture imperialism or dominance.

We Need A New Approach To Achieving Justice For The Transgendered

 Sometimes those who seek justice for a persecuted group imitate their enemies. Lenin did that when finishing the overthrow of the Tsar. Unfortunately, this is what is occurring for the Transgendered and those seeking to change genders.

Such as those from other groups in the LGBT community, the Transgendered have been sorely marginalized and abused. And there is no excuse for that. That marginalization and abuse is often the result of what has been taught in the name of Christ. Many of my fellow Christians wish to just marginalize the everyone in the LGBT community so that society teaches what the conservative Church teaches about sexual orientation and gender identity. That desire to marginalize the LGBT community is wrong and immoral.

One of the reasons why many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians believe in their efforts to marginalize the Transgendered community is that they equate one's biological sex status from birth with gender so that the biological sex status one is born with is the only factor one uses to determine one's gender identity.

Those who are or are seeking to be Transgendered rightfully disagree with how my fellow religiously conservative Christians think about one's biological sex status from birth and gender for society. Why would I say that my fellow Christians are wrong here? It comes from reading about how Native Americans approached gender identity. Some tribes recognized up to five different genders and their different gender identification groups did not always neatly follow the LGBT model of thinking. For example, men who more identified as women and women who more identified as men would work side by side and doing the work of those whose gender they most identified with. And this gender reassignment implied nothing about sexual orientation.  What we should note is that Native Americans recognized that gender identity can be determined by other factors besides the biological sex status one is born with. Our failure to consider that reality is a cause for the attempts by some to marginalize the Transgendered.

So what did these Native American tribes do differently from both my fellow religiously conservative Christians and LGBT community? What the latter two groups have in common is this equation between gender identity and one's biological sex status. For many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians, they equate one's biological sexual status with one's gender identity so that the former overrides the latter. But for those who are or are seeking to be transgendered, they too equate one's biological sex status with gender identity only in their case, they work to have their gender identity override the biological sex status they were born with.

The overriding of either biological sex status one was born with or one's gender identity is quite simply a denial of reality. Though I cannot relate to those who suffer from gender dysphoria, it is wrong for me to deny the reality of their gender identity. I can say what the Scriptures say about gender identification, but I must never deny the reality they live with.

So perhaps we need to restructure how we think about gender identity so that we try to neither deny the reality of the biological sex status each person is born with nor the reality of one's gender identity. Realize that this different approach is not the approach that should be taken in the Church; it should be taken in society only. The difference is because the Church should be ruled by the Scriptures while society should seek to practice democracy.

So when it comes to bathrooms, sports, and what other spheres that gender identity touches, we need to divide groups by gender rather than by just the biological sex status one was born with. Society needs to recognize both the biological sex status one was born with and gender identity and classify people by gender with the caveat that we recognize that there are more than two genders. In doing so, we avoid denying some undeniable realities and perhaps we will do more to recognize the rights of all involved, both the rights of those who are or are seeking to be transgendered and those who are cisgender.

The Only Alternative Is To

Will be reviewing an article written by Carl Trueman (click here for info on Trueman) on his reaction to the Bostock Supreme Court decision regarding discrimination at the workplace. This article was posted in the First Things website which is a conservative Catholic website that posts writings from Conservative Catholic thinkers and even from some non Catholics (click here for the article).

Now usually I respond to Trueman's articles in the comments section which is provided--or I should say was provided. Unfortunately, First Things has gone the way of many conservative blogs by removing its comments section for blog articles. This is an unfortunate trend since it reinforces the perception that conservatives are often authoritarian and cannot tolerate dissent.

Anyway, the Bostock decision ruled that an employee could not be dismissed from one's job because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This has upset Trueman who has written quite a few articles on sexual issues in society and its culture.

One would think that it is only fair that employees could not be discriminated against because of sexual orientation or gender identity. But Trueman doesn't see it that way because it means that things aren't what they use to be. That our society and its culture have finally rejected what the Scriptures say about sexual orientation and gender identity. For if society accepted what the Scriptures said, then the laws for society would reflect it. Remember that Trueman is reacting to a SCOTUS decision here, not just a cultural trend.

But his objections go on past what is stated above. For what Trueman does not like about the Bostock decision is that it reinforces the belief in the 'autonomous self.' Then he quotes a line from a book by Catholic Theologian Douglas Farrow:

The autonomous will really has no choice but to attack the body as well as the mind. For the body is the most obvious locus of the given, the most stubborn impediment to the power claimed by the will.

Trueman follows that by saying: 'Transgenderism is the logical outcome of all this.'

The trouble is that Trueman's claim is made from a philosophically deductive approach. Not that there is anything wrong with making philosophical deductions, nothing wrong at all. The problem is that when philosophical deductions are not met by the facts on the ground, they prove themselves to be meaningless.

What do we know about the causes for gender dysphoria that we could automatically assume that responding to that dysphoria with a change in gender is one attacking one's self?

But there are other issues here besides LGBT issues and the results of the Sexual Revolution--another favorite target of Trueman. Those issues include a concern over the 1st Amendment with its affirmation of religious freedom. Those issues include a concern with how we Christians should share society with unbelievers. Those issues include a concern with how much our laws for society should be guided by the Scriptures. And last, but not least, those issues include a concern with what do we want to associate with the Gospel.

When we oppose a SCOTUS ruling that protects people from discrimination, what do we Christians think we are associating with the Gospel? Can't we both preach against what the Scriptures call sexual immorality and the modern view of gender identity and still oppose discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity at the workplace?

Unfortunately, Trueman writes an inordinate number of articles on sexual issues that often focus on LGBT issues and what he thinks is a toxic effect that the LGBT community and the Sexual Revolution have on society. And this is most unfortunate. For while Trueman seems to be writing in order to promote conformity in society, he has demonstrated the ability to be an independent thinker. He has offered some brilliant Biblical insights when interpreting the Scriptures. He has the kind of talent that we need in the Church to address societal issues. But unfortunately, what appears to drive his writings about some issues is a desire to establish a significant degree of Christian control over society and its laws.

The only alternative to the SCOTUS decision that Trueman opposes is the imposition of Christian views and rules on society. And the biggest objection to that is not when that imposition will stop. The biggest objection is whether we have the right to impose our Christian views on unbelievers in society regarding individual moral issues. For while we can preach against the autonomous self, do we have the right to legislate against it?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 14, 2019

Aug 10

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on mass shootings and his attempt to single out broken families as the key factor in those who practice such violence. (This appeared in Heidelblog).

We need to consider other factors when looking at mass shootings. That factor is national location. It isn't that America is the only nation where there is divorce on demand or the other factors mentioned.  For example, I heard of one minister attribute the increase in mass shootings in our nation to the increased secular influence on society. But, again, other nations have an even greater secular influence on society while experiencing a fraction of problems with  mass shooting. And unless people want to argue population size, a block of Western Europe that has a comparable population to the US still has a fraction of U.S. mass shootings.

We might also note that the majority of mass shooters are white males (see https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/ )and a large number of domestic terrorism from 1993 to 2017 was conducted by right-wing groups. Such groups include white supremacists, anti-government groups, and anti-abortion extremists (see https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/CR_5154_25YRS%20RightWing%20Terrorism_V5.pdf ). Though some might protest that because of population, it would make sense that the majority of mass shooters are whites, the percentage of white mass shooters exceeds the percentage of whites by a few percentage points. And there is also a larger percentage of black mass shooters vs the percentage of Blacks in the population. Here we should note the privilege that whites have over Blacks in society.

Also, though some would note that we switched gears from mass shootings to domestic acts of terrorism, the two groups are not disjoint. Mass shootings can be included as acts of domestic terrorism. And we should also note that the use of explosives and arson are included in acts of domestic terrorism. However, we should also note that domestic terrorist attacks include attacks where the death toll is lower than what qualifies as a mass shooting.

We might also note that the number of deaths that determine whether a mass shooting took place has been changed from 4 to 3 during Obama's Presidency. A source for statistics on mass shootings in the US can be found at Mother Jones (see https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/ ). Using that database, we should note that the number of yearly mass shootings has increased during President Trump's Presidency so that it is only under Trump's Presidency that we have a double digit number of mass shootings per year (for the years 2017 and 2018, there are currently 8 mass shootings for the year 2019).

Thus, despite what was reported in Scott's article on mass shootings, there are connections to make between certain acts of violence and race along certain acts of violence and ideology. Since just after 9/11 to 2016, just short of 73% of domestic terrorist attacks were conducted by right-wing groups. Beliefs involved in right-wing attacks include:
 
    ---  Fiercely Nationalistic
    ---  Anti-gobal
    ---  Suspicious of Federal Authority
    ---  Reverent of individual liberty (especially the right to own guns, be free of taxes)
    ---  Belief in conspiracy theories that involve a grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty
    ---  Belief that one's own personal and/or national "way of life" is under attack
    ---  Belief in the need to be prepared for an attack

In addition, 23% [CORRECTION: the number is right but it is not the percentage, I made a mistake in the comment, it should be 27% because of 23 incidents out of 85] of domestic terrorist attacks have been conducted by Muslim extremist groups (for that of statistics see  https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf ).

Thus, the emphatic effort of the above article to try to blame the bulk of mass shootings or other acts of violence to that of broken families seems to stem from more from ideological concerns than from a wider view of the problems with violence and the evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Rosaria Butterfield and her message given on Abounding Grace Radio on how Christians should react to Intersectionality. She rejects Intersectionality as being anti-Christian. She also views the Celibate Gay Christian movement to be a contradiction to the Gospel. This was a recorded message posted on bounding Grace Radio.

Also posted on heidelblog at https://heidelblog.net/2019/08/agr-conference-audio-intersectionality-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters/
 
Note that the comment below was sent to both sites.

A few observations are necessary here.  First, when Rosaria talks about Intersectionality's rejection of the Christian metanarrative, she is not being precise enough. For Intersectionality does not have a monopoly on rejecting the Christian metanarrative, both Modernism and Post Modernism reject the Christian metanarrative. But here we should note that the Christian metanarrative is simply a subset of Pre Modernism. Modernism rejects the faith metanarrative of Pre Modernism while Post Modernism rejects the metanarratives of both Pre Modernism and Modernism.
Since Intersectionality is child of Post Modernism, it too rejects the Christian metanarrative. But why is this the case? The root of Post Modernism's rejection of Pre Modernism's metanarrative is not ideologically based as it is observationally based. That is because of many forms of human exploitation and persecution practiced by standard bearers of Pre Modernism (including Christian standard bearers), Post Modernism rejects the Pre Modernism's metanarratives. But lest Pre Modernism feels too marginalized, Post Modernism has the same reaction to Modernism.
This points to the kind of truth system employed by  Post Modernism. It is an outcome-based truth system where truth is determined by whether one's tenets has been used in the exploitation or oppression of others.

Right away we should note the kind of thinking involved in Post Modernism. That thinking  fails to distinguish between the consistent outcomes of how a metanarrative determines how we treat others from misattributed or inconsistent ones. This failure to make such important distinctions is the hallmark of black-white thinking. And we need to look at whether, in her reaction to Intersectionality as well as the Celibate Gay Christian Movement, Rosaria employs the same type of thinking.

Another observation involves the fact that Christians live in two different worlds that have connections. I am not talking about some 2 Kingdom model of thought here. Rather, I am talking about the world of the Church and how the Christian should expect  the Church treat people and Society and how the Christian should expect Society to treat people. Should the Christian expect both Society and the Church to treat people the same or differently? Should we Christians confuse Society with the Church or vice-versa? What we have today are very conservative Christians and very liberal Christians providing mirror images of each other. This is where while some Christians judge Society by how it treats and regards people with how the Church should while others employ the converse.

Which way should we judge? We could answer that question with an analogy. In America, while we expect the Church to demand that its members believe in Christ alone as God and Savior, we expect society to make no such demand. Thus, we expect the Church and Society to act differently from each other. Thus regarding LGBT concerns. the issue becomes whether we should expect the Church and Society to behave differently or the same toward the LGBT community.  This issue is not explicitly expressed explicitly Rosaria's comments though it seems that she gives some indication that she believes  Society and the Church to treat and regard the LGBT community much  in the same way.
Finally, whether we religiously conservative Christians can see partial value in Intersectionality depends on whether we can escape the conservative-liberal versions of confusing the Church with Society.

Is Oneself Not Big Enough To Be A Religiously Conservative Christian And A SJW?

For as long as I can remember, religiously conservative Christianity has, for the most part, always opposed those working for Social Justice. In the 1960s, many religiously conservative Christianity blindly supported the Vietnam War and Jim Crow. In fact, two major denominations, the SBC and the PCA, have passed resolutions publicly apologizing for their resistance to the Civil Rights Movement.

One could go farther back than that. Machen's feud with Liberal Theology went beyond their unfair treatment of him in the United Presbyterian Church and their misrepresentation of the Christian Faith. That is indicated by his rejection of everything they advocated and many of his followers have taken his place in persecuting everything about Liberal Theology including its social concerns.

If we want a recent example of religiously conservative Christianity's opposition to Social Justice, one only needs to look at the writings of its leaders in the buildup to the Supreme Court's  Obergefell decision. Not one leader saw the decision as one that concerned equality for the LGBT community in society. In fact, by trying to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage in America, religiously conservative Christians were saying that America always needs to see such marriages as a stain on society and thus the LGBT community must always be marginalized to some degree rather than be recognized as equals, in society.

Is it any wonder then that Rev. William E. Alberts (click here for a brief bio) has been writing articles for Counterpunch that imply that religiously conservative Christians must leave their conservative faith in order to be able to oppose social injustices. The latest is called Beware Of Authoritarian Christians (click here for the article) and what that article says is that Christians who take the Scriptures seriously and who understand that God speaks authoritatively to us are a threat and thus are obstacles to Social Justice.
 
Non-conservative pposition to religiously conservative Christianity is not new. Back in 2005, I responded to a ZNet article that said that Christian Fundamentalism is not opposed to Social Justice (click here for my article, cannot locate the article I was responding to). What was key in that article was the accurate definition of Christian Fundamentalism.

Likewise, what is key in interpreting Alberts's article is the accurate interpretation of what Authoritarian Christians are. And it is there that the beginning weaknesses of Alberts's article become apparent.

On the other hand, Church History is not kind to my view that religiously conservative Christians can work for Social Justice. I would have to look long and hard to find examples of religiously conservative Christian leaders who do break away from their political conservatism to work for Social Justice. However, I can easily find regular individual religiously conservative Christians who do.

What does Alberts say in the above cited article? Alberts seems to say that acceptance of the historic Christian Faith is merely an example of authoritarianism. The following quotes show his disdain for the historic Christian Faith:

• However, many other Christians use The Bible to stress belief in the uniqueness of Jesus himself, not in the universal “Blessed are the peacemakers”-ethic of humanness he taught. For these Christians, first and foremost, Christianity is about right biblical belief, not just democratic behavior. Fundamental here is Jesus’ exclusivity as the only Son of God and savior of the world (John 14: 6), not the inclusivity underlying his story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 25-37).
   
• For traditionalists, God’s unchanging “eternal“ sexual ethic” includes Jesus’ teaching, “ Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh?” (Matthew 19: 4-6) Another “God-breathed” Scripture “authoritative for our lives” is Paul the Apostle’s condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1: 26-27: “Even their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

The above quotes from Alberts's article shows not only a denial of the historic Christian Faith, but a gross misrepresentation of it as well. Nowhere in the New Testament is faith in the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as God's Son and only savior of the world a contradiction the beatitude of 'Blessed are the peacemakers' or the story of the Good Samaritan. If Alberts correctly understood the point of that parable, then he would understand that that parable both tells us how to treat others while condemning us for not doing so.

In addition, Alberts misses the irrefutable logic that is in the historic Christian Faith regarding God's Word. If a superior being, whom we call God, created us for a purpose, it logically follows that that superior being not only can speak authoritatively to us, but will do so. The issue is whether Alberts believes that the God of the universe is a superior being to us.

Alberts's use of what is democratic to judge what is valid in the Scriptures indicates that he either he does not believe that God is a superior being or that we are sinful creatures--that we have fallen into sin is another tenet of Christian Fundamentalism. For Alberts says:

Christianity and authoritarianism are commonly believed to be at opposite ends of the democratic-autocratic continuum.

And

For these Christians, it is not about The Golden Rule of empathy between people, but about using biblically-based beliefs to rule over people. It is about the overriding authority of particular biblical pronouncements and required obedience to them. Such authority and obedience are actually fundamental characteristics of anti-democratic tendencies. Claiming that biblical passages are revelations from God does not make them true, nor demanding obedience to them any less authoritarian.

  
Alberts's use of democracy to filter out what is true Christianity from the Scriptures indicates that he has joined many Christian Fundamentalists who oppose Social Justice activism in particular practice: That practice is the inability or unwillingness to distinguish between life in the Church and life in society. For far too many Christian Fundamentalists, life in society should pretty much mirror life in the Church. Thus they believe they have the right to impose their beliefs on society. For Alberts, it's the converse of that so that he believes that society has the right to impose its standards on the Church.

Alberts goes on to say that because of the authoritarian nature of the historic Christian Faith, that followers of that faith have fallen prey to the Authoritarian Personality Type described by Adorno and others. The study of the Authoritarian Personality Type is a result of much reflection on what occurred in among regular German civilians during the Nazi years. Though it is true that so many followers of the historic Christian Faith have embraced active and passive forms of the Authoritarian Personality Type, that is not because of the historic Christian Faith and its contents.

For Alberts to make good on his accusation that mere acceptance of the historic Christian Faith is an exercise in that kind of authoritarianism, he must show that such acceptance meets the key traits of that personality type. But that claim grossly misrepresents what is involved in those who succumb to the Authoritarian Personality Type. For part and parcel of that personality type is not just the mere acceptance of some recognized authority figures or set of traditions, what is always a part of the Authoritarian Personality Type is when aggression and hostility are shown to those who challenge accepted authority figures and a given set of traditions. Without that aggression and hostility, those who hold to traditional views and follow recognized authority figures are simply followers and even teachers of those beliefs.

Alberts does fail to mention a pertinent problem of the initial description of the Authoritarian Personality Type. It was initially criticized as being skewed in the favor of non-conservatives in that the traits associated with that personality type were found solely in conservatives. Only later did the traits associated with the Authoritarian Personality Type expand to recognize the authoritarianism that can occur in non-conservatives. And hanging out with the political left as I do, not liberal Democrats mind you, I've seen close to as much authoritarianism in the Left, as well as among Liberals, as I've seen in conservatives. The authoritarianism is the same, what is different are the set of authority figures and traditions that are aggressively defended.

Another flaw in Alberts's view of the historic Christian Faith can be found in the following quote:

Sadly, many traditionalist Christians are anti-introspective and thus lack a psychological understanding of personality and sexual development, which would counter a paternalistic need to reconcile others to their beliefs. Psychological insight enables self-understanding, which enables empathy, which enables practicing The Gold Rule of doing to others as you would want them to do you – all of which enable The United Methodist Church’s slogan, “Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open doors.” More than traditionalists realize, they are believed to be “fashion[ing” God in the “image” of “large areas of [their] own inner life.”

According to the parable of the two men praying taught by Jesus (click here for Luke 18:9-14), nothing could be more anti-introspective than to deny one's own sinfulness and because of that sinfulness, one can neither trust in one's own goodness nor see oneself as being superior to others. Why did Jesus compare the Pharisee who saw no sin in himself with the tax collector? It was because those who trusted in their own righteousness and saw themselves as being superior to others exhibited the anti-introspection that Alberts claims to be talking about. For how does the parable begin?

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable:

How is it that if Jesus told this parable to religious leaders who denied their own sinfulness, that Jesus's parable does not also apply to Alberts and his apparent denial of human sinfulness?

Finally, we should address the burr in Alberts seat that drives this article of his. His article is simply an attempt to psychologically shame the United Methodist Church for not accepting practicing homosexuals into their  leadership. Such a rejection denies homosexuals from reaching their God right to find 'human fulfillment' in how their sexuality.

Never mind that refusing to ordain LGBTQ persons, or allow same-sex marriages are glaring obstacles to their “human fulfillment.”

Now if Alberts was complaining about how the vast majority of leaders in the historic Christian Faith want society to marginalize the LGBT community, he would have a very valid complaint about authoritarianism in the religiously conservative Christian Church. But that isn't his complaint. Again, because he expects the Church to mirror society and he appears to deny the sinfulness of people, his complaint is not valid. He forgets the many times that New Testament writers call on the Church to be different from the world and that includes in terms of its sexual purity.

In essence, Alberts's article is typical criticism of the historic Christian Faith from a Liberal Theological and Post Modernism views. And because of that, his criticisms are either non-starters or include misrepresentations of the Christian Faith. In addition, he has so defined and used the definition and traits of the Authoritarian Personality Type so as to indicate, at least in the issue of the Methodist Church refusing to accept the ordination of practicing homosexuals, in a way that ironically makes him and those who agree with him invulnerable to practicing the same confidence in one's own righteousness that the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying displayed.

However, we should note that far too many of religiously conservative Christians have embraced the Authoritarian Personality. It just isn't for the reasons that are specified by Alberts.

It's Denver VS Nashville In Statements On Sexuality

Just recently, we've seen two statements written by groups that claim to be Christian. Both statements concern themselves with sexuality, including relations,  orientation, and gender identity, as is being experienced and promoted in America today. And both statements are reactionary in nature. The Nashville Statement (click here) consists of a preamble and 14 article statement that serve as a reaction to sexual relations and gender identity as is practiced and experienced in 21st century America. The Denver Statement (click here, note that the copy linked to also contains the contents of the Nashville Statement) is a reaction to the Nashville Statement and thus consists of an alt-preamble and 14 alt-articles plus a bonus article. For both, each article contains expressions of what is affirmed and what is to be denied. And whereas the Nashville Statement challenges popular notions about sex and gender issues as well as sexual practices as celebrated in our culture and seen in society, the Denver Statement challenges what is declared in the Nashville Statement. And whereas the Nashville Statement was written by and endorsed by religiously conservative American Christians, the Denver Statement was written by members of both the LGTB community and the straight community.

When reading these statements side-by-side, it is not enough to summarize these statements by noting that one statement challenges the society's current mores while the other one lends support to society's approval of each individual's own direction in sexual self-discovery.

But the statements' different reactions to culture and society are not the most significant differences between the two statements. Rather, it is the different views of mankind that best distinguishes and explains the two statements. We should note that the writers of both statement acknowledge that people sin. The difference lies in the fact that the writers and supporters of the Nashville Statement believe that human nature has fallen into sin. What follows is the need for God to reveal both Himself and how He wants us to live. In contrast, the writers and supporters of the Denver Statement, though acknowledging the fact that people sin, do not seem to look at human nature has having fallen from a sinless state. Sin seems to be a natural result of being an imperfect creature. What follows that is the belief that mankind is in a constant discovery mode about himself and God. And so what each person discovers must be not just respected, which means not challenged or disagreed with, but supported as well.





So while the Nashville Statement does an admirable, but not inerrant, job at expressing the Biblical view of sexual issues such as sexual practices, sexual orientation, and gender identities, the Denver Statement serves as an apologetic for society's current support for the right of each person to explore how to live as a sexual being to the criticisms of the Nashville Statement.

With the two statements, is there any context in which we could perhaps create some kind of hybrid of the two statements? Except for Article 10 of the Nashville statement, I believe that is possible. For if we define the sphere of influence of the Nashville Statement to be that of the Church and what the Church will preach to society while the sphere of influence in the Denver Statement to consist of what will be regarded as legal in and accepted by society, we could perhaps make up a partial hybrid of the two statements. That is we could except for Article 10 of the Nashville Statement. For Article 10 says the following:

WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.

WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.

For such a statement suggests that the answer to the possibility of creating a rough hybrid of the two statements is a definite 'NO.' For Article 10 fails to make a distinction between public approval of sexual practices, sexual orientations, and sexual identities in society from a public tolerance of the same in order to promote and protect the full equality of the LGBT community in society. This is where Article 10 of the Nashville Statement needs revision. After all, we know from the exclusionary claims made by Christ, that we are not to publicly approve of any religion that does not make Christ its only Lord and Savior. And yet, we vigorously defend freedom of worship and religion even for those faiths that we consider to be outside the Christian Church. Why can't we make the same distinction for the sake of those whose sexual practices and views with consenting adults vary from those taught by the Scriptures?

The lack of nuance that is part of Article 10 will unnecessarily cause  great confusion for many a young, religiously conservative American Christian. Why? Because while Article 10 seems to suggest that the Church must forever work to marginalize, at least to some degree,  those from the LGBT community in society, Millennial Christians know that such marginalization is a form of oppression and is thus wrong. They understand that some who promote such marginalization do so out of a fear-inspired hatred for those from the LGBT community. And thus, Article 10 draws a line in the sand that seems to say that one must continually work for at least some degree of marginalization for the LGBT community in society or one must see oneself as being outside the Christian faith. And thus the choice some of these religiously conservative American Millennial Christians will make is to believe that God must approve of the unbiblical kinds of sexual practices, sexual orientations, and gender identities otherwise they must  oppress those from the LGBT community.



 

ONIM For August 7, 2017

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.

Christian News

• Anglican Priests Sacked For Being Gay Must Be Reinstated, Kenya Court Rules -- Christian Today (UK)
• British Churches Urged To 'Step Up' Response To Refugee Crisis -- Christian Today (UK)
• 'Diminishing America': Major Evangelical Group Attacks Trump-Based Immigration Act -- Christian Today (UK)
• Christians Against A Godless State? Another Evangelical Takes His Conscience To Court -- Christian Today (UK)
• How God Keeps It Together -- Christianity Today
• 1 In 10 Protestant Churches Experience Embezzlement -- Christianity Today
• The No. 1 Reason Churches End Up In Court Is No Longer Child Abuse -- Christianity Today
• Trump's Evangelical Advisors Discussed Transgender Ban At White House Meeting -- Religion News Service
• The Nightmare Of Sam Brownback -- Religion News Service
• 'They Kept Us As Slaves': AP Reveals Claims Against Church -- Religion News Service
• Joel Hunter To Step Down From Orlando Megachurch -- Religon News Service
• Serving God By Suing Others: Inside The Christian Conservative Legal Movement -- Religion News Service
• Why Jesus Says He Is The Only Way To Heaven -- Christian Crier
• How Much Should I Share With The Poor -- Plough
• Top Trump Administration Officials Flock To Bible Study Classes At White House -- Chicago Tribune
• Suffering, Lament, And The Grace Of God -- Mortification Of Spin
• The Fundamentalist Christian Chokehold On America -- Huffington Post
• How Some Evangelical Christians Are Complicit In The Cruelty Of Politics -- Dallas Morning News
• Pope Francis' Allies Accuses US Catholics Of Forming An 'Alliance of Hate' To Back Trump -- Independent

World News

• The Exploding DNC IT Scandal Is As Crazy As Fiction -- Forbes
• From The Englightenment To The Dark Ages: How New Atheism Slid Into The "Alt-Right" -- Salon
• Two Dead, Four Wounded In M-16 Shooting At German Nightclub -- Yahoo News
• Aid To Trump Says Military Exists To "Kill People And Blow Stuff Up," Not To Include Transgender Soldiers -- Yahoo News
• Scientists, Theologians Ponder If New Biological Findings Are More Compatible With Religion -- Religion News Service
• Jared Kushner's Company Embroiled In Yet Another NYC Real Estate Dispute -- Yahoo News
• My Party Is In Denial About Donald Trump -- Politico
• Trump Supporters Attack Republican Jeff Flake For Slamming President, Defending Obama -- Newsweek
• The Most Polluted Cities In The World, Ranked -- CBS News
• Judge Orders FBI To Probe Records Of 1950s Program That Purged Federal LGBT Workers -- Yahoo News
• This 1 Number Sums Up Why That Foxconn Deal Is Over-The-Top Bad For Wisconsin -- Market Watch
• NASA Offering Six-Figure Salary For New 'Planetory Protection Officer' To Defend Earth From Aliens -- Independent
• IMF Admits Disatrous Love Affair With The Euro And Apologizes For The Immolation Of Greece -- Telegraph
• Israeli Grandfather Who Thought Family Perished In Holocaust Discovers  500 New Relatives -- Haaretz
• The Future Of The Low-Wage Worker Movement May Depend On An Unheraled NYC Law -- Waging Nonviolence
• Repression Offers Opportunity For Hong Kong's Pro-Democracy Movement -- Waging Nonviolence
• A Manual For A New Era Of Direct Action -- Waging Nonviolence
• Police Chief Changes Tune: Former Cop Who Violently Punched Valet Should Be Arrested -- Miami Herald
• There Are Diseases Hidden In Ice, And They Are Waking Up -- BBC
• US Ignores Saudi Beheading Of 14 Activists, Labels Venezuela Dictatorship Despite Elections -- Ron Paul
• U.S. Citizen Who Was Held By ICE For 3 Years Denied Compensation By Appeals Court -- NPR
• When Progressives Embrace Hate -- New York Times
• Meat Industry Blamed For Largest-Ever 'Dead Zone' In Gulf Of Mexico -- Guardian
• Millennials And Gen Xers Outvoted Boomers And Older Generations In 2016 Election -- Pew Research Center
• U.S. Hispanic Population Growth Has Leveled Off -- Pew Research Center
• APNewsBreak: Flynn Details Tie To Data Firm, Transition Pay -- Miami Herald
• Majority Of Americans Have 'Unfavorable View' Of Black Lives Matter, Say Black Crime Is A Top Concern -- Newsweek
• Military Scrambles For Transgender Policy After Trump Tweets -- AP News
• Martin Shkreli Found Guilty On Several Counts Of Fraud -- Huffington Post
• Finish Citizens Given Universal Basic Income Report Lower Stress Levels And Greater Incentive To Work -- Independent
• McConnell To Consider Bipartisan Plan To Pay Health Insurers -- Yahoo News
• Trump Loyalist Mixes Business And Access At 'Advisory' Firm -- New York Times

Israel-Palestine News

• The Next War In Gaza Is Brewing. Here's How To Stop It -- New York TImes
• I'm A 90-Year-Old Woman Who Has Lived In Israel For 50 Years--Here's What I Think About Israeli Settlements -- Independent
• Video: Norman Finkelstein & 25 Others Arrested At Israeli U.N. Mission Protesting Gaza Assault -- Democracy Now
• 'The Worst It's Been': Children Continue To Swim As Raw Sewage Floods Gaza Beach -- Guardian
• Life Inside The Gaza Blockade -- Sojo.net
• 'Disappointed' AIPAC Targets Gillibrand From Removing Her Name From Boycott Bill -- Mondoweiss

Collusion News

• Trump's Role Is Crafting A Misleading Statement For His Son Could Spell More Legal Trouble For The White House -- Business Insider
• Video Shows Trump's Lawyer Previously Denied The President Was Involved With Trump Jr.'s Misleading Statement About Meeting WIth A Russian Lawyer -- Business Insider
• Trump 'Weighed In' On Son's Russia Statement, White House Confirms -- Guardian
• Special Counsel Robert Mueller Reportedly Assembles Grand Jury, Ramping Up Russia Probe -- Huffington Post
• Donald Trump Blocked By US Senate From Making Government Appointments During Summer Recess -- Independent

Donald Trump News

• Trump's Mar-A-Lago Trips Cost More Than Trans Soldiers' Health Care -- USA Today
• The Observe View Of Donald Trump's Unfitness For Office -- Guardian
• Trump Enlists Kelly To Enforce Order, But Can The 'Animals In The Zoo' Be Tamed? -- Chicago Tribune
• Donald Trump To Meet Rex Tillerson After Reports Of 'Chaos' And Resignation At The State Department -- Newsweek
• Trump On Tricky Legal Ground With 'Obamacare' Threat -- Yahoo News
• Trump Bulldozes Environmental Laws To Pave Way For 'Xenophobic' Border Wall -- Common Dreams
• Is Trump About To Declare A State Of Emergency? -- Yahoo News
• DEA Chief Slams Trump's Police Remarks -- Business Insider
• Trump's Call For Police Brutality Is No Joke -- Truthdig
• I've Overestimated Donald Trump -- New York Times
• Warnings Of 'Nuclear Nightmare' As Trump Escalates Tensions With World Powers -- Common Dreams
• Trump Can't Be Left Alone, So His Generals, So His Generals Created Plans To Keep Tabs On Him: Report -- Newsweek
• Exerpts From Trump's Conversation With Journalists On Air Force 1 -- New York Times
• Trump Is Doing Irreperable Harm To The White House's Credibility -- CNN
• Trump Blasts Report On Obstruction Of Justice Probe -- Reuters
• Read Trump's Full Statement On Why The Russian Sanctions Bill Is 'Seriously Flawed' -- PBS
• Democrats Join Republicans In Bill Criminalizing Speech Critical Of Israel -- Democracy Now
• Five Reasons Trump Is Wrong On Immigration -- Truthdig
• Those Calls To Trump? White House Admits They Didn't Happen -- New York Times
• 'Not Right Now': Republicans And The Art Of Not Talking About Trump -- New York Times
• Full Transcripts Of Trump's Calls With Mexico And Australia --- Washington Post
• Trump Asked Mexico To Stop Publicly Refusing To Pay For His Unimportant Border Wall -- Huffington Post
• Trump Tells Generals U.S. Should Plunder Afghan Minerals -- Truthdig 

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• For Some Saudi Women Facing Strict Male Authority And Even Abuse, There's Only One Answer: Run -- Los Angeles Times
• John Kelly, Asserting Authority, Fires Anthony Scaramucci -- New York Times
• Here's The Explosive Russia Testimony You Missed Whilst Distracted By 'The Mooch' -- Huffington Post
• The West's Anti-Liberal Backlash Can't Escape Its Racism -- Washington Post
• Deputies Tortured A Restrained Teenager By Using A Stun Gun On Him, Lawyers Say -- Washington Post
• Justice Dept.To Take On Affirmative Action In Colleges -- New York Times
• The Beckoning Of Nuclear War With Russia -- Truthdig
• Terror In Britain -- ZMagazine
• Destroying Democracy -- ZMagazine
• How Corporations Have Taken Over Government, Nonprofit And Regulatory Agencies -- Truthdig
• NAACP Issues First-Ever Travel Advisory For A State--And It's Missouri -- Miami Herald
• U.S. Deportation Raids Under Trump Lead To Huge Rise In Arrests Of Immigrants Without Criminal Records -- Independent
• Globally, People Point To ISIS and Climate Change As Leading Security Threats -- Pew Research Center
• U.S. Court Tosses Murder Conviction Of Ex-Blackwater Guard -- Reuters
• Bomb Explodes At Minnesota Mosque During Morning Prayers: FBI Terrorism Task Force Investigating -- Newsweek