Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 12, 2022

 October 7

To Heidelblog and Mark David Hall for the portion of Hall's article that is quoted in a Heidelblog post. The blog title asks if Christian Nationalists are the same as Christians who invest in their country. The title of Hall's article asks if Christian Nationalism poses and existential threat to the nation. Hall's article is a review of a book by Paul D. Miller titled The Religion Of American Greatness.' Hall says that Miller fails to prove that Christian Nationalism poses an 'existential threat' to America. 

Mark David Hall's full article can be found at:

    https://lawliberty.org/book-review/christian-nationalism-an-existential-threat/

There are two problems with the religiously conservative Christian response to reports on Christian Nationalism. The first problem is that many religiously conservative Christians wish to minimize the existence of and threat posed by Christian Nationalism. They do that by denying  its existence, relativizing the efforts made by and goals held by Christian Nationalists, or equating Christian Nationalism with part of being Christian.

The second problem is that Christian Nationalism is merely one threat that many religiously conservative Christians pose to our nation and its democracy. That is because many, if not promoting Christian Nationalism, promote some level of a Christian Ethnocracy in America. The concept of Christian Ethnocracy is mentioned in the article cited though not by name. A religious ethnocracy is when, in a multi-religious society, one particular religion seizes a privileged place in government  where it has a significant degree of control over the government's making of laws and uses that control to secure its privileged place in society.

Regarding the first problem, Mark David Hall, the writer of the article quoted from above, tries to minimize the reports of Christian Nationalism by discrediting with a generalized accusation about motives of the sources that report on it. Never mind that many of those sources are Christian sources of which some are for Christian Nationalism and others are opposed. But with a wave of his hand, he simply tells us to pay no attention to the reporters of Christian Nationalism.

But Hall does not deny its existence. And so what he does with the rest of his article that reviews Miller's book is to minimize the influence that real Christian Nationalists have. But the problem here is that there is an increasing number of politicians who either identify themselves as Christian Nationalists or promote Christian Nationalists themes is a bit larger than Hall acknowledged. These politicians include Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Mary Miller, Kris Kobach, Ron DeSantis, and Doug Mastriano. Former Attorney General, William Barr, has been identified as a Christian Nationalist by some. Prominent theologian Albert Mohler has identified himself as a Christian Nationalist. If I read Franklin Graham correctly, we could classify him as a Christian Nationalists. And there are those who are following in the footsteps of  Rousas Rushdoony, such as Doug Wilson, who carry, in varying ways, the flag of Dominionism which promotes a kind of Christian Nationalism. There is David Barton and his organization, WallBuilders. And the above listing doesn't include past promoters of Christian Nationalism themes like D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, all of whom were mentioned in Hall's book. We should note that Liberty University and the ACLJ have survived their founders though we need to add that not every student attending Liberty University subscribes to the ideas promoted by Christian Nationalism.

But what has really sounded the alarm of Christian Nationalism's threat to America was January 6th. The significant presence of Christians with Christian symbols and their support for Donald Trump and Trump's political favoring of certain popular Evangelical people, popular in some Evangelical circles, provided additional evidence of the significance of the presence of Christian Nationalism. I would hasten to add here that Trump was not a supporter of Christian Nationalism as much as he was an exploiter of Christian Nationalists.

But even with the above list, there are many Christian Nationalists whom were not mentioned by either myself or Hall's article. But we should note that there is a battle in the Republican Party over whether that Party should should identify itself as a promoter of Christian Nationalism. And so do we need to urgently respond with drastic measures to mitigate the efforts of Christian Nationalists here? The answer is 'No.' But does Christian Nationalism pose significant presence in various sectors of our society? The answer has to be 'CERTAINLY.' That is despite the fact that Hall uses some issues promoted by Christian Nationalists to say that support for those issues does not imply that one is a Christian Nationalist. But implication is not the same as indication. Does support for those issues indicate that one could be a Christian Nationalist is a question not addressed by Hall.

Now outside of Christian Nationalism, which merges America's Identity with a Christian Identity and wants its government to pass laws that reflect that merging, there exists another Christian threat to our nation. That threat is posed by those who want America to become a Christian Ethnocracy. A religious ethnocracy is when, in a multireligous nation, one religion seizes a privileged place in government so that the laws reflect what values of that religious group as well as secure a privilege place in government for that religious group

Those favoring a religious ethnocracy would include all Christian Nationalists. But it would also include Christians who do not fit the definition of Christian Nationalists but want such a privileged position for Christianity in American government and society. An objection to that definition has been to say that don't all groups, including the Republicans and Democrats, want a privileged position that would allow them to determine the laws of our nation? The answer to that for Republicans and Democrats would be to say 'No.'

Here we should note that Republicans, with the exception of MAGA followers, and Democrats are not looking to legally establish a permanent privilege position. Rather, Republicans and Democrats rely on elections to establish their position and power in government. So that if either party has a dominant influence, that influence is subject to change at any election rather than be secured for a foreseeable future by laws.

Among those who are looking to establish a Christian Ethnocracy are those who want to base our laws on the Judeo-Christian Heritage. Others proponents of an American Christian Ethnocracy want to base our laws on  the 2nd Table of the Ten Commandments, which consists of Commandments from the Fifth Commandment to the Tenth Commandment according to how the Reformed Faith regards the Commandments.

Finally, to answer the  question posed by the title of this blogpost, the answer is 'No.' Why? Because Christians can be invested in America without the trappings of Christian Nationalism or other forms of Christian Ethnocracy. And what determines whether we Christians are invested in our nation without promoting any kind of Christian Ethnocracy includes supporting democracy including the egalitarianism that is so much a part of democracy. Martin Luther King Jr and the SCLC provide a wonderful example of how to use Christianity to promote equality rather than some religious privilege.

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

Oct 11

To José Maria J. Yulo and his article that uses a book by Eva Brann about how the quest for equality has led to the committing of atrocities. The example of the uprising by the democrats in Corcyra was used as an example. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Some who comment on revolutions that are meant to be liberating sometimes attribute the abuses committed in that struggle on the quest for liberation. That was done with the French Revolution when the atrocities committed during that revolution were attributed to the quest for liberty, equality, and fraternity. 

It was done with the October 1917 Revolution in Russia. Those who opposed the socialism blamed the tyranny that followed on the quest for socialism. We should note that not even socialism was pursued after that revolution.

And so the same goes with the example cited from the book referred to. What is hardly ever considered in this matter are the effects that the previous oppression had on the the people rebelling.  There is no consideration of the possibility that the oppression by tyrants and the suffering of those who rebelled led to atrocities committed in the struggle for liberation.

On an individual basis, it is often acknowledged that abuse leads to abuse. That the abuse suffered by an individual, especially when they were young, contributed to  them abusing others. So why didn't the author of the book referred to consider that what led to the atrocities by the democrats of Corcyra against the cities oligarchs was in large part a response to the abuse that the oligarchs had been visiting on those democrats. In fact, not only was the abuse by the oligarchs not considered to be a reason for the atrocities committed by the democrats there, the old status quo is hardly ever considered to be unjust. The same goes for the conditions that preceded the French and Russian Revolutions. The conditions of the old status quos are normalized when they are not commented on and/or not considered to be a major factor in atrocities committed during rebellions. 

Such shows a bias in those reporting on those atrocities. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 13, 2017

December 5

The following comment is included as a blocked comment because the comments section for the blog fails to function correctly.

To Thomas Kidd and his blogpost describing the Masterpiece Cakeshop case being heard in the Supreme Court. That case revolves around the owner of the cake shop as having the right to deny providing services for a same-sex wedding because he views his cakes as a work of art and thus his decision to deny services to a same-sex wedding to be protected by the First Amendment. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

The problem I see with Phillips's argument is that it is an attempt to redefine one's place as a vendor in the marketplace. That would allow anyone to excuse themselves from the social contract that is applicable on all vendors by claiming to be something different than a vendor. And what follows excuse can eventually become a Jim Crow type of discrimination that bars whatever group is being targeted from participating in the marketplace as a consumer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 12

To R. Scott Clark and his 2 part blogpost that describes where the Church is going. It consists of criticisms solely of those beliefs that lie outside of the one promoted by Reformed Theology. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I wanted to wait to respond to Part One (see https://heidelblog.net/2017/11/where-is-the-church-heading-part-1/) of this 2-part series til the second part was posted.

What I see in the article is this, there is an implicit view of infallibity of those who stay true to Reformed doctrines. Why say that? It is because in both articles, all of the negative attributes of today's Church can be attributed to those outside of the Reformed Faith whether they involve non-reformed Protestants, Roman Catholics, or heretics. This is unfortunate because of one of the directions in which the Church is going  is because of what its conservative elements that exist in Roman Church, in the truly Reformed Church, or the non-reformed Church are setting it to. That direction being referred to is not so much the fault of what is considered to be important tenets of the faith. The direction I am speaking of is the association that the conservative Church in America is making with conservative politics and Americanism.

We should note that once we call ourselves Christians, everything we do or say or fail to do or say becomes associated with the Gospel. So if Christians support today's Republican party platform, then everything in that platform which we support becomes associated with the Gospel to those both inside and outside the faith. That is why many, regardless of whether they are Christian or unbelievers, see hypocrisy in the Church's pro-life stand and its support for those items in the Republican Party's platform that threaten life (see https://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/10/12/fellow-white-christian-friends-i-wish-you-really-were-pro-life/  ). That hypocrisy when given time gives birth to dissonance and that dissonance when given time yields stumbling blocks for unbelievers who hear us preach the Gospel or for believers who are then tempted to stray from the faith.

We need to look at all that we, who hold to doctrinal expressions that we believe are the most biblical expressions, associate with the Gospel through our belonging to other groups including political and economic ideologies. For, from what I see, much of today's scorn by society for the Church has more to do with the associations we make than with the key doctrines we  preach to the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Mark David Hall and his blogpost on how the ACLU’s view of separation of Church & State  is wrong. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

Besides the false contention that America's founders were not deists--some were and some weren't--comes the failure to see that the main issue before us is not what the founders planned for our nation, but what the NT either says or does not say about how we should share society with others. Hints at how we are to do this exist in the Scriptures that deal with Church discipline (see Matthew 18:15-19 and I Corinthians 5). In neither of those passages are we told to bind those outside the Church with what the Church teaches about personal sin. At the same time, we have Jesus's explicit command not to 'lord it over' others as the Gentiles do (see Matthew 20:25-27).  
The combination of what was said and not said in those scriptures suggest how we are not to share society with others. We are not to dominate or force our views on others. We are not to subjugate those outside the Church to our views. And yet, because we religiously conservative Christians are given to authoritarianism, we often do not know how to turn off the authority switch when dealing with others. Thus we find ourselves treating others in society in ways not supported in the NT. And that is really the main issue that the above article deals with. This appeal to the faith of the founding fathers for forcing our faith on others is an authoritarian move.

As for the statement about the nonexistence of deism in America's founders, we should note that believing in general providence, as Franklin did, does not disqualify someone from being a deist. And removing all references to the supernatural, as Jefferson did in his version of the Bible, certainly removes one from the Christian faith.  Finally, the dismissive statement about the use of an inadequate number of statements made by Jefferson and Madison to promote separation of Church & State and the time those statements were made fails to account for how those statements were used in other legal documents.

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

Nov 3

To Jonathan Parnell and his blogpost on what Ministers can do when they suffer from ‘pathological self-criticism.’ This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

I have been aware of pathological self-criticism because my home life, when I was a kid, fostered it. My father was an alcoholic and my mom had other problems. I know people who grew up in an abusive household who also suffer from pathological self-criticism.

Now the kind of self-criticism my examples refer to may not be the kind of self-criticism being referred to in the article above. But the self-criticism we experience is often pathological.

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

Nov 4

Should note that there is a test to make sure one is not a robot when entering a comment on the general Gospel Coalition site. The test for the comment below was to answer the following: 17 - 3 = . I typed in the answer of 14 and was notified that my answer was incorrect.

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that supports President Trump’s military ban on transgendered people. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

The problem with Carter's article here is that he merely claims that the presence of transgendered troops will be 'detrimental' to our military. He offers no evidence to support that claim. Thus, he is acting similarly to Trump when he issued the order because Trump issued that order without consulting the military.

And what if the presence of transgendered troops would hurt the morale of the troops, wouldn't we first have to determine how that harm takes place before deciding on whether we should pursue having transgendered troops in the military.

We should be able to study these issues seeing that transgendered troops have been serving in the military. In fact, there are thousands of transgendered troops serving in the military at the current time or very recently with the most famous being Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning. He turned over some  "confidential" information to Wikileaks including the cold-blooded murder of two journalists as they accompanied what seemed to be, for the most part, unarmed Iraqis. This murder, called Collateral Murder on the web, included not only one of our helicopter gunships firing at these Iraqi escorted journalists, the helicopter also fired at an Iraqi van that clearly was there to pick up the wounded. Such an attack is equivalent to terrorists attacking an ambulance.
Too many of us religiously conservative Christians (a.k.a, flaming fundamentalists) go beyond the preaching of the Scriptures about homosexuality. We go beyond that to blatantly show more than mere hostility to the LGBT community. And Trump's ban on transgendered troops, along with Carter's thoughts in the above article, are examples of that hostility despite the fact that Trump is not a religiously conservative Christian. He is, however, representing many of them with his ban.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 6

To Mark David Hall and his blogpost contesting the claim that many of our nation’s founding fathers were deists and thus Christianity had a very large role in our nation’s beginning. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog

Articles that try to present the founders of our nation as being overwhelmingly Christians fail in two areas. The first failure comes from the fact that more founders were deists than the person making the claim is willing to admit. Believing in providence doesn't necessarily make one a theist as opposed to a deist. Denying the supernatural, as say Jefferson did when he wrote his own version of the New Testament, doesn't point to any theism I know of unless, as in Jefferson's case, he is a believer in a completely different religion.

Second, just as there is a difference between the legal tax rate and the effective tax rate, so to there is a difference between one's confessed faith and the faith one is living out. And just as we saw with those who confessed to be Christian, their treatment of Native Americans by taking their land or by the owning slaves or embracing of white supremacy contradicted their confession of faith. Or we could look at the event that spurred the writing of The Constitution: Shays Rebellion. For that rebellion, and the accompanying dissent, was a rejection of the rule of the domestic financial elites, many of whom were well represented by our founding fathers who wrote The Constitution. What faith condones the valuing of profits over people as was supported by many of those writing the document? Or what faith makes one the object of their own worship as was done by claiming to be special or acting as if they were superior to others?

This urge to overly Christianize our founding fathers comes from the same source as what led Billy Graham to use celebrities in his crusades: it's a form of authoritarianism. It's a much lighter than other forms, but it still is a form of authoritarianism. For in authoritarianism, truth is determined by one's credentials more than the facts and logic involved in making a claim.  And that is what we have here in trying to overdo the association of the faith of our founders with the Christian faith. We are being told to either be less inclined to challenge our founders and what they wrote and said because they were Christians and/or give Christians a privileged position in society in the making of our laws and social mores because the founders were Christians.

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

Nov 7

To Joe Carter and his blogpost lamenting the fact that millennials are adopting more favorable views of communism and socialism. This appeared in the Acton blog

I think what is more troubling than the millennial view of communism and socialism is the conservative view of either communism or socialism. Why the conservative view is so troubling is because it makes monoliths out of both communism and socialism when, in reality, they are not. In fact, even though the above article stated there was a difference between communism and socialism, when reviewing the view of millennials of leftist leaders, only communist leaders are listed. In addition, Putin is listed as a communist leader even though the nation he leads is not a communist state. Yes, he was part of the communist regime by being a member of the KGB, but he has not enforced communism on Russia. Instead, he has instituted a government that is works and plays well with oligarchs. In addition, we should note the cozy relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and Putin.

What we should be aware of are the differences between Marx and those who ruled in his name. We should investigate whether tyrants like Lenin, Mao Zedong, Stalin, and so forth really followed Marx in how they ran their nations. There are many socialists of varying types that strongly contend that those leaders were not following Marx. At this point, the conservative definition of Marxism, communism, and socialism is of no help because of its tendency to conflate and define these isms as monoliths.  And in defining these isms as monoliths, all-or-nothing judgements are made on these isms rather tying to identify the good and bad points of each ism.

And from the parable of the two men praying, the zeroing in on atrocities committed in the name of Marx while forgetting the atrocities committed by the West whether or not the West includes the United States does not bode well for the spiritual state of the West. For just in the states, millions of Native Americans were ethnically cleansed from the land so that white Christians could have places to live. In addition, we need to remember the millions of Blacks who were killed either in the transport of Africans to America for slavery or in the efforts made to keep slaves in their place and we need to remember the many killed in order subjugate Blacks in society after the Civil War . Now those millions don't include the millions of people the US has killed in its questionable wars and interventions. The number of Vietnam civilians killed by the US during the Vietnam War is in the millions. And those millions don't include the millions of people killed as Western nations built their empires. And we should also note that Nazi Germany was a politically conservative western country that promoted private property, racism, nationalism, and traditional values--restoring traditional values was part of the Nazi Party's campaign platform. And Nazi Germany was also responsible for its own millions of deaths.
Carter's article ends up providing too little information to actually prove its point. To that extent, the information it does provides seems to use a fear out of ignorance to manipulate the opinions of its readers.