Reflections On Another Super Bowl

The wife and I watched this year's Super Bowl with some old friends--we have been friends for decades. And I found myself in a familiar role of being the only one rooting the team I favored. So while everyone else rooted for the Eagles, I rooted for the Chiefs despite having grown up in the Philadelphia area.

 I use to be an Eagles fan but then dropped the team when they hired Buddy Ryan as their coach. That was decades ago. I moved on to another team. The Chiefs was not that team, but I rooted for them because I really like their quarterback.

The Eagles played with the more energy than the Chiefs in the first half and I suspected that the Chiefs would return the favor in the 2nd half and they did. The only question was whether the Chiefs could overcome a 10 point deficit. They did thanks a good team effort and the quarterbacking of Patrick Mahomes. And even the opposing quarterback statistically outperformed Mahomes, Mahomes's engineering of the victory earned him MVP honors for the game.

The Chiefs did have one advantage over the Eagles that was rarely if ever mentioned. The Chiefs had been tested during the playoffs by Jacksonville and Cincinnati. Both of those opponents were tougher teams than the Eagles face especially after both 49er quarterbacks were injured in the NFC Championship game with the Eagles. 

As I watched the different parts of the pregame ceremonies and the game itself, I tried to imagine how people from other nations saw the U.S. We should note that almost every part of the pregame ceremonies was hyped which demanded applause. The same could have been said for the halftime show that was far more show than it was music. Pop music in the US is rather simple and it promotes conformity in how audiences suppose to respond. That conformity can be used to promote authoritarian mindsets. Then, as in most of our professional baseball and basketball championships, we had a world championship event where the teams came from the same country: the U.S. And so I wondered just how narcissistic does America come off to the world.

Though those who are proud to be American patriots might be offended by my musing, that would only confirm my thoughts. After all, how many nations currently bill themselves as the greatest nation in the history of mankind? How many nations have a significant percentage of their population who believe that the world would fall into tyranny and disarray without their existence? And how many of us American citizens get significantly offended when their fellow citizens or other people question the image that we have of our country? How many of us have either said or heard the phrase, 'America, love it or leave it'? Are we willing to admit that our nation has a significant problem with narcissism because of what we believe and insist that others think about us?

I then reflected on the fans. Of course, the fans from neither team are monolithic. But what we had there was a large portion of those fans who paid thousands of dollars per ticket and dressed up in ways that showed support for our team. In Philadelphia, the city was preparing for a celebration in case the Eagles won by trying treat the light poles so that no one would climb them. Some other American cities have had near riot conditions when their teams won "world championships.' 

All of the ways that the fans behaved and were prepared to behave made me wonder if we Americans are living more vicariously than we should or realize. By that I mean that we are finding more significance in the achievements by and recognition of our favorite entertainment and sports heroes or other elites than we find in what we accomplish or in how we live.

I finally was wondering if our nation would improve if all of the hype and attention that we put into entertainment events like the Super Bowl were put into the proper education of our young people, especially our young people who live in economically depressed areas. What if we showed more interest in and care for those young people than we show in our favorite entertainers? What if more of us paid more attention to national and world events that hurt the lives of many people than the information we pay to events like the Super Bowl? What if more of us valued learning more than we value being entertained? How much better would life be for many of our fellow Americans?

A Proposed New Year's Resolution For Religiously Conservative Christians

 I have not been able to post here because of a combination of bronchitis and family schedule. And though while still struggling with bronchitis, I am getting better.

In the meantime, I've read most of the book How White Evangelicals Think: The Psychology Of White Conservative Christians by Dave Verhaagen (click here for info on the book). And while Dr Verhaagen claims that many, but not all, of the problems with white Conservative Christians are due to narcissism, I tend to think that many of our problems have to do more with our passionate  embrace of authoritarianism. And our authoritarianism manifests itself primarily through how we so easily discard the views of unbelievers as well as our desire seek a privileged place for religiously conservative Christians in society in terms of making laws and controlling cultural standards.

Before stating why I think that more of our, which is us white Christian Evangelicals,  problems are due to authoritarianism, which is also described in Dr. Verhaagen's book. I want to hasten to add that his book is.a very good book and he is writing with expertise that I don't have. On the other hand, I am speaking from what I have observed as a white Christian Evangelical for most of my life. 

Dr. Verhaagen is very clear in stating that not all white religiously conservative Christians are narcissists. Bur why I disagree with him is that while all narcissistic white Evangelicals also struggle with being authoritarian, so too do those white Evangelicals who are not narcissistic. And thus it seems to me that authoritarianism is the most prominent problem that we white Evangelicals have. 

Dr Verhaagen well describes authoritarianism by focussing on the traits of the authoritarian personality type. Here, Dr. Verhaagen gives a list of traits of the authoritarian personality type. His list is very similar, if not the same, as the list of traits of that personality type can be found in this Psychology reference (click here). 

But what Dr. Verhaagen seems to overlook is that his list of traits seem to present a shewed view of the authoritarian personality type as as if  conservatives or those who favor the status quo of a given location or nation are the only one who could be authoritarian. In addition, Dr Verhaagen also seems to overlook why us religiously conservative Christian of all shades struggle with authoritarianism. That reason is that authority structures have become so much of the religiously conservative American Christian teaching and culture, that we religiously conservative Christians seem unable to turn off the authority switch in our lives. We seem unable to envision any part of life without seeing hierarchies and we stubbornly refuse to learn from those who have different world views than we have. In fact, when reading many religiously conservative Christian analyses of different theories, ideologies, and isms, too many times have prominent Christian influencers and teachers totally dismissed an observation, theory, or ideology because they have a different worldview than us religiously conservative Christians have.

And thus, though I believe that many of us white Christian Evangelicals do exhibit a significant degree of narcissism, especially collective narcissism, it is authoritarianism that is a more significant driver to our problems in interacting with society and culture than narcissism.

And so here is my proposal for a New Year's resolution for me and my fellow religiously conservative Christians of all shades: rid ourselves as much as we can of our authoritarianism. And we can do that by seeking to work side by side as equals with our fellow citizens who are unbelievers in trying solve our problems. We can also rid ourselves of authoritarianism by no longer discarding everything that a given theory, ideology, or person is saying simply because they have a non-Christian worldview. Instead of discarding everything than an unbeliever or a non-Christian view has to say, we look to rationally examine each claim that an unbeliever or non-Christian theory says to see what we can accept. If we follow through with the above resolution of abandoning our authoritarianism, we very well could not only contribute more to solving societal and the world's problems, we could better advance the Gospel by avoiding hurting the reputation of the Gospel which our authoritarianism tends to do.

Why Are So Many Religiously Conservative Christians Also Politically Conservative?

The question asked in the title of this article has been addressed before. In particular, The Witness: A Black Christian Collective tried to answer that question regarding white Evangelicals. And their answer provided some helpful insights (click here for the article). Their answer revolves around individual responsibility and assigning the cause for our problems on broken relationships, especially our corrupted relationship with God. And thus the more the government steps in to help people, especially the vulnerable, the more it is seen as a denial of those core beliefs.

Now the above summary of the article from The Witness does not do enough justice to the article and so I suggest that everyone should read the article. However, there is more to the alignment of religiously conservative Christians, especially white Evangelicals, with conservative politics and ideology than mentioned in the article. And that commonality has to do with the attributes of the 'conservative' label itself.

Now we should first note that conservatism is relative to the context of its immediate location. What was conservative in the old Soviet Union is still considered to be liberal in the US. And thus, we will narrow this discussion to the US.

Political and ideological conservatism seeks to maintain tradition and the status quo to the extent that the status quo is built on accepted traditions. It resists change especially when change is revolutionary and experimental (click here). Here conservatives exist on a continuum in terms of how much they rely on the past for their understanding of today's world. The more rigid a conservative is in resisting change, the more that conservative exclusively looks at the past in terms of understanding and addressing issues in the present.

The conservative reaction to the Parkland student's gun control activism serve as an example of how conservatives depend on the past. While the experiences of those student with a mass shooting prompted them to ask for something new, new gun control measures, conservatives balked at their demands Why? It was because, according to many conservatives,  the problem of mass shootings was not caused by a failure of current gun control laws and the 2nd Amendment. The problem was caused by people rejecting the values that served our ancestors so well. Thus, the conservative solution to the problem of mass shootings did not even include any introduction to any interim gun control laws while we wait for societal values to change. Instead, conservatives demanded that enforcement of current gun control laws be enforced and that society changes its values while rejected any changes in our gun control laws.

Another example of how conservatives look to the past to understand and respond to the present can be seen in how many religiously conservative Christians view Socialism and Marxism. R. Scott Clark, in his most recent article on Marx and Marxists, writes about today's Marxists solely through the lens of what Marx wrote and nations like the Soviet Union practiced. He didn't account for variations and some disagreements that followers of Marx have shown over the years or that many Socialists vehemently disagreed with Lenin's politics (click here for a Socialist's disagreement with Lenin) or Stalin's rule over Russia (see Gorbachev's comments on Stalin in his book, The New Russia). Instead, he presents Marxists as a monolithic group who have never developed from the time when Marx wrote (click here for his article and there and there again for additional blurbs by Clark).

Thus, conservatives tend to live on one end of a continuum where they look solely to the past for understanding the present and addressing its problems. The more that political and ideological conservatives look solely to the past for living in today's world, the more resistant they are to even listening to or considering to  try anything new. For these conservatives, their reverence for our nation's Founding Fathers prevents them from listening to anything new and thus causes them to see all of our problems as they view how our Founding Fathers would have interpreted our problems.

Now we come to white, religiously conservative Christians in America. Our belief that the Scriptures are complete for telling us how we should live makes us lean to treating the Old Testament prophets and New Testament Apostles as political and ideological conservative reacted to the Founding Fathers. And because we tend to believe that our nation was founded on Biblical principles, the reverence we have toward the Biblical writers when it comes to understanding life and our relationship with God is then extended to our nation's Founding Fathers in terms of what we need for a healthy political system. Here we should note that there is a certain level of self-exaltation with the view that our nation was founded on God's principles. But regardless, it becomes a reason for why what the Founding Fathers wrote is regarded as a canon of sorts for measuring all that followed in our nation.

So here we should note that what unites white, religiously conservative Christianity with conservative politics and ideology is the shared conservative leaning toward looking SOLELY to the past in order to understand and respond to the present. What follows that tendency is to interpret any modern approach understanding and responding to the present as an indictment on revered conservative sources, on accepted traditions. To use any other approach other than the accepted traditional approach to understanding and responding to the present is to imply that accepted past sources and traditions were either inadequate or flawed. 

But what also accompanies a high reverence for the past and accepted traditions is authoritarianism. And part of authoritarianism includes hostile and aggressive responses to any challenges against recognized authorities and traditions. This is what white, religiously conservative Christianity and conservative politics and ideology have in common. Certainly, these conservatives do not form a monolith, they do vary. Some conservatives are willing to look at more than the past to understand and respond to the present. But the scope of their vision to look beyond the past is very limited. And that leaves the rest of the conservatives who look solely to the past to discover today's solutions.

So the common fault of all these conservatives is how much they look SOLELY to the past to understand how to live in today's world. It's not the mere looking to the past for help that is the issue, it is how much one looks exclusively to the past that get us in trouble. 

But the counterparts to these conservatives have problems with the past as well. For while conservatives might look solely to the past in order to understand how to live in today's world, those who totally refuse to earn from the past are showing signs of narcissism. For one who believes that they have everything to teach one's ancestors and has nothing to learn from them is guilty of the same character flaw practiced by one's conservative counterparts. So how much we use the past to understanding today and solving its problems becomes a balancing act. To look too much to the past that we ignore new perspectives means that we have exalted those from the past above ourselves. But to never look to the past because we believe that those who preceded us have nothing to teach us is the result of exalting ourselves above all who preceded us, it is a sign of narcissism.



While we can use other insights, such as those that come from The Witness, to understand conservatives, we must also include how conservatives reverence the past regardless of whether we are dealing with a religious or secular conservatives. And though we might rightly find fault with the conservative approach to depending so heavily on the past, we must admit that all of us struggle with how to balance our dependence on traditions and the past with our acceptance or creation of something new to live better in today's world.

What Is Behind The Fans' Reactions To The Players Kneeling

This blogpost is written for some who have not taken kindly to Colin Kaepernick's kneeling during the playing of the national anthem. This article is written for some, not all. It isn't written for those who merely disagree with what Kaepernick did. I respectfully disagree with such people.

Rather, this blogpost is written for those who call for or even demand punishment for those players who have kneeled or found other ways to protest during the playing of the National Anthem. Some such people are going to boycott the NFL to put financial pressure on the owners to require players to stand.  

Such people are more offended when some don't stand for the National Anthem than they are for the reason Kaepernick protested in the first place: racism as exercised by some, but too many, police officers.  Such people want Black athletes to find better ways to protest without considering what they could do to reduce racism in our nation.

Such people essentially say they are offended because not standing for the playing of the national anthem shows disrespect to veterans without considering that some veterans support what Kaepernick did (click here). So if some veterans are supporting him, how can people say that what he did was disrespectful to veterans?

We should note the fear, anger, and hostility that some are expressing toward Kaepernick and others are really signs of personal problems. For example, do you believe that people who do not believe that this is the greatest nation in the world should leave? Then you should check the symptoms of narcissism. They include believing that one is more important than they are, being fixated on power and success, 'requiring constant admiration,' being unaware of or blind to what others experience and feel, and acting arrogantly (click here). BTW, we should note that narcissism isn't just for individuals, groups can enjoy it too. And those who participate in group narcissism don't have to be narcissists as individuals.

Are you enraged with players like Colin Kaepernick because he isn't doing what has always been done which standing at attention for the playing of the national anthem? Then consider some of the signs of the Authoritarian Personality: a strict following of middle class values, automatic submission to authority, being hostile to those who don't follow conventions or traditions, fixated on being dominant over others, and projects their own feelings on others (click here).

From a Christian perspective, those who place too much importance on a symbol or entity run the risk of idol worship. In his book, Losing Moses On The Freeway, Chris Hedges says that the following is part of idolatry (see page 42 of his book):

Those who worship idols deal harshly with those who become apostates.

The idols of nation, race, religion, ethnicity,gender and class are idols that demand exclusive and false covenants. These covenants exalt ourselves as long as we only define ourselves through the narrow definitions and exclude others outside the circle. Idols are always about self-worship. The idols subvert the equality that protects us from tyranny and injustice, the respect that urges us to see worth and dignity in all human life, even in those who oppose us. But the fear of exclusion, of incurring the wrath of those who worship the idol, sees us willing to justify the ostracism and even  abuse of others.

 We should note that we didn't become group narcissists, authoritarians, or idolators on our own; we had help We grew up being told how exceptional America is and, when we were young, were at least implicitly guided to never question the wars America fought. In addition, my own faith, Christianity has always overemphasized authority structures and punishment to the point that it began to embrace authoritarianism. And with regard to idolatry, we should note what Paul wrote in Romans 1:21-25 (click here):

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Is it really rational for those who really enjoy watching pro football to not only abstain from watching the game, but go on to try to punish a handful of protesting players simply they didn't stand at attention during the playing of the national anthem? Or is there something else going on? The above article answers the last question with a definitive 'YES'!

ONIM For April 10, 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 the story.


Christian News

• US Catholics Voted For Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump After All, New Research Says -- Christian Today (UK)
• Proof Of God? 4 Ways Christians Can Share Their Faith With Atheists -- Christian Today (UK)
• Archbishop Of Canterbury Speaks To Christian Today About Life, Prayer, And The Hope Of The Ressurrection -- Christian Today (UK)
• ISIS Church Bombings Kill Dozens At Palm Sunday Services In Egypt -- Christianity Today
• A Closer Look At Christians Who Don't Go To Church -- Christianity Today
• Why Has Evangelism Fallen On Hard Times -- Christianity Today
• How The Black Church Saved Me -- Reformed African American Network
• Why American Evangelicalism Might Defeat Racism: Gospel-Centered, Black Churches -- Reformed African American Network
• When Moses Preached The Gospel -- Gospel Coalition
• African-American Christians And Fundamentalism -- Gospel Coalition
• Why Can't We Be Friends? -- Mortification Of Spin
• How Religious Movies Are Thriving More Than Ever Before Under Trump -- Business Insider
• The Changing Global Religious Landscape -- Pew Research Center

World News

• Judge To Trump: No Protection For Campaign Rally Speech Inciting Violence -- NBC News
• The Trouble At Fox News Keeps Getting Worse -- New York Magazine
• Ex-Fox News CFO Offered Immunity In Roger Ailes Investigation -- CNN
• What Was Lenin Thinking? -- New York Times
• Refugee Children In Sweden Are Falling Into Coma-Like States On Learning Their Families Will Be Deported -- Independent
• Trump Quietly Revoked Fair Pay Order Leaving Women Vulnerable To Workplace Abuse -- Women In The News
• Stop Blaming The Poor. It's The Wally Yachters Who Are Burning The Planet -- Guardian
• A Message From The End Of The World -- New York Times
• Bannon Taken Of Trump National Security Council In Shake-Up -- Bloomberg
• Why Tax Resistance Under Trump Needs Its Antiwar Edge -- Waging Nonviolence
• Trump, Citing No Evidence, Suggests Susan Rice Committed Crime -- New York Times
• D.C. Among First In The Nation To Require Child-Care Workers To Get College Degrees -- Washington Post
• Chomsky: Leftist Latin American Governments Have Failed To Build Sustainable Economies -- Democracy Now
• Trump And The Parasitic Presidency -- New York Times
• Kentucky Coal Museum Installs Solar Panels To Save On Electricity Bills -- NBC4
• '1984' In 2017: Movie Based On George Orwell's Classic Screens Today, Nationwide -- Los Angeles Times
• Trump Said Obama Needed War Authority From Congress. Will He Ask For It Now? -- Yahoo News
• Russia Says It Now Recognizes Jerusalem As Israel's Capital -- Business Insider
• Confidence In Housing Falls, As Consumers Worry About Jobs -- Yahoo News
• Trump's 'Fake News' Declarations May Have Borrowed Cues From The Tobacco Industry -- Business Insider
• Kushner Omits Contacts With Russian Officials In Application For Security Clearance -- Business Insider
• Israel 'Studying' Russian Statement On Jerusalem Recognition -- ABC News
• Midterm Match-Up: Partisan Tide Vs. Safe Seats -- Pew Research Center
• Why Muslims Are The World's Fastest Growing Religious Group -- Pew Research Center
• Trump's Weary Defenders Face Fresh Worries -- New York Times
• Why Are Liberals Now Cheerleading A War Mongering Trump? -- Guardian
• Republicans Land A Punch On Healthcare, To Their Own Face -- New York Times
• Industrial Farming Is One Of The Worst Crimes In History -- Guardian  

The Syrian Conflict News

• Mounting Evidence Points To Nerve Gas In Syria Chemical Attack -- Time
• Survivors Of Syrian Attack Describe Chemical Bombs Falling From The Sky -- CNN
• Syrian Rebels Used Sarin NerveGas, Not Assad's Regime: U.N. Official -- Washington Times
• Is Assad To Blame For Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria? -- DW
• The Media Are Misleading The Public On Syria -- Boston Globe
• The Trump Administration Appears To Embrace Regime Change In Syria -- Atlantic
• U.S. Strikes Syrian Military Airfield In The First Direct Assault On Bashar Al-Assad's Government -- Washington Post
• The Main Question After Strikes On Syria: How Does Russia Respond? -- Washington Post
• Russia Ups Ante By Freezing Communications With US In Syria -- Yahoo News
• Russia Warns Of Serous Consequences From U.S. Strike In Syria -- Reuters
• Russian PM: US Strike On Syria Puts Russia 'One Step Away' From Clashing With America -- Business Insider
• Russia Just Suspended Key Military Agreements The US--Raising The Risk Of War -- Business Insider
• Russian And Iran Warn US They Will 'Respond With Force' If Red Lines Are Crossed In Syria Again -- Independent
• Spicer: U.S. Must Face 'Political Reality' Of Assad In Syria -- Yahoo News
• Some Questions About The Chemical Attack In Syria -- Foundation For Economic Education
• Canada Was Briefed On And 'Fully Supports' U.S. Missile Strikes Against Syria: PM -- CBC News
• Trump's Support From Democrats On Syria -- Atlantic
• Trump Considers War After Syria Chemical Attack -- Yahoo News
• Israel Backs 'Strong Message' Sent By US Syria Strike -- Yahoo News
• Situation In Syria Constitutes International Armed Conflict--Red Cross -- Reuters
• Many Trump Voters Welcome U.S. Air Strikes As Show Of Strength -- Reuters
• It Looks Like Russia Is 'Dangling' A New Offer To Entice Trump Against Attacking Assad -- Yahoo News
• Israel's Former Chief Rabbi Says A Holocaust Is Happening In Syria -- Washington Post
• U.S. Missiles Won't Liberate The Syrian People -- Socialist Worker

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• Chechen Authorities Arresting And Killing Gay Men, Russian Paper Says -- New York Times
• Blackwater Founder Held Secret Seychelles Meeting To Establish Trump-Putin Back Channel -- Washington Post
• Yes, U.S. Locks Up People At Higher Rate Than Any Other Country -- Washington Post
• A Call To Conscience, MLK's Beyond Vietnam: A Time To Break Silence. Relevance To U.S. Wars And Militarism Today -- United For Peace And Justice
• Ukraine Accuses Russia Of 'State Terrorism' After Former MP Shot -- Reuters
• Fifty Years Ago MLK Accused The U.S. As The 'Greatest Purveyor Of Violence In The World' -- Truthdig
• Noam Chomsky: Trump Administration Is Aiming Decimate All Programs To Help Working People -- Democracy Now
• Trump Pulls Back Obama-Era Protections For Women Workers -- NBC News
• Donald Trump Signs Order Making It Easier For Men To Sexually Harrass Women At Work And Get Away With It -- Independent
• President Trump Wants To Cut Foreign Aid During World's Worst Humanitarian Crisis -- Time
• House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes Recuses Himself From Russia Probe -- Washington Post
• US Admits It Committed Mosul Airstrike 'At Location' Where '200' Civilians Died -- Independent
• E.P.A. Chief Rejecting Agency's Science, Chooses Not To Ban Insecticide -- New York Times
• A Body Cam Captures A Cop's Violent Encounter With A Teen--But A New Law Keeps It Secret -- Washington Post
• The Pandora's Box Of War -- Truthdig
• Trump And The Pathology Of Narcissism -- Rolling Stone

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 7, 2016

Sept 6

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on how the statement truth offends narcissists is used to promote reformed theology. This appeared in Heidelblog.

What the title says is true. But everyone needs to examine oneself to see if one is a narcissist  for believing in some truths does not exclude one from that club.

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

To R. Scott Clark’s blogpost quote of Calvin on real religion and the following of the rule of worship. This appeared in Heidelblog.

So thus says Calvin. But could we see Calvin's emphasis on the law reflected in Paul's epistles such as the one he wrote to the Galatians? Or is Calvin's emphasis on the law reflected by what Jesus said to the woman at the well when he said true worship is in spirit and in truth rather than at Jerusalem?

I see theological opportunists who, because of the heritage of their theology, use this quote by Calvin as a reason for claiming that they have a monopoly on real religion and thus see themselves as being above others. Certainly not all Christians and theologians are such opportunists, but some are.

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

To Dan Dorlani and his blogpost on why voting for the lesser of two evils is wrong. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Two points on voting for the lesser of two evils, which was called 'Consequentialism' here, are missed. First, those who push voting for the lesser of two evils intend to rob the voters of their independence by trying to compel them to vote for someone who does not represent them. Second, those who push Consequentialism are trying to inflict a kind myopia on fellow voters. This kind of myopia revolves around time in that only the soon to follow consequences matter. Here we should note that the only way to escape a voting for the lesser of two evils is to make third party candidates viable. And since most change is incremental, we must go through elections of voting for non viable third party candidates with hope future third party candidates eventually become viable.

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

To Mike Bullmore, Ryan Kelly, and Vermon Pierre and their blogpost discussion on whether we are required to forgive those who do not repent from sinning against us. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.

There were some good points here especially regarding the distinction between forgiving and the need for restoration. And there is a good point made about love covering a multitude of sins. But there is an important point that was not just missed, it taught wrongly. That point revolves around us having clear consciences with at least the suggestion that these consciences of ours are accurate. And that leads to the most important point of whether we believe that we have repented from all of our sins. If we believe that such is possible, then we lean towards some kind of perfectionism and perfectionism relies on obedience to the law rather than faith. It also leads to other problems of being judgmental and acting like the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying (see Luke 18:9-14).

The more we understand how sinful we are, then the more the command to forgive others as we have been forgiven should temper any ill-feelings we have toward those who have offended us. And perhaps how much we rely on the forgiveness of God is, at least in part, indicated by how willing we are to forgive others.

The Invisible Triple Threat To America's Christians

Many religiously conservative Americans wear their religion on their sleeves. Of course this means that their religious views and sentiments are full display. And the combination of that eager sharing of one's religion, adhering to the patriotic theme of American Exceptionalism, believing that America was founded as a Christian nation, and embracing Biblical themes from both the Old and New Testaments makes many of us religiously conservative American Christians susceptible to isms that can prove to be quite harmful to both ourselves and to others. These isms are authoritarianism, narcissism, and tribalism. For each of these isms, we will first define it, then we will show how it is related to American Conservative Christianity, and finally we will begin to display how they are interconnected.

We could define authoritarianism as the over reliance on the use of  human authority. This over reliance is to the point being oppressive or supporting oppression. In terms of the traits of authoritarianism, authoritarianism can be divided into two categories: active and passive authoritarianism. The former kind of authoritarianism refers to authoritarianism as exercised by leaders while the latter form is practiced by its followers (click here for a reference). We should also note that truth in authoritarian circles is more determined by the credentials of the source than by the facts and logic of a particular argument. Such assumes that too many in the audience are not qualified to question those in authority.

We should note that it is easy to see where Conservative Christians get their authoritarianism from. Most of the relationships we have, as described in the Scriptures, seem to involve authority figures. God is our ultimate authority. We are to submit to the authority of our governmental leaders whom God has placed over us. We are to submit to our church leaders for the same reason. We are to submit to those with authority at work also for the same reason. Children and wives are to submit to the male head of the house because Christ is the head of the Church. And children are also to submit to their mothers.

It seems like every place we turn to, we are facing an authority figure to whom we owe obedience. Thus, we struggle with democracy because democracy levels the playing field between people. In addition, democracy allows us to challenge those in authority. Finally, a democratic society is not obliged to recognize God's authority here on earth. Yes, there is a final reckoning. But while we are here on earth, democratic societies can disregard many of God's commands. 

Thus, we run into our problem. We want our society both to be called democratic and to be submissive to God's authority. It's like we cannot turn off our submit to authority switch while trying to respect democracy. And when we see how authority was wielded in the Scriptures, we struggle with not expecting the same kind of response when people rebel today. In addition, many of our past great Church leaders were very authoritarian. 

Take Martin Luther and John Calvin as examples. They were eager to enforce all of God's laws on society. And they were more than bombastic in dealing with disagreement and dissent. So we struggle and perhaps feel insecure with allowing people to have the freedom to ignore or challenge those in authority. And not only that, we often imitate their blustering rhetoric because you either obey those in charge or you disobey. The traits of authoritarianism, that is the unbalanced reliance on authority, are listed after the end of this blogpost.

We Conservative Christians are also at a higher risk than normal to suffer from Narcissism. Think about it. We believe that because our nation was founded on Biblical principles, it is special and is above all other nations. It is that 'city upon a hill' that shows the way to the rest of the world. And that is just from American Exceptional point of view.

From the Christian view, we believe, and rightly so, that Jesus is the only one who can save us. And thus, we are the only ones who are saved. So how is it that we do not think more highly of ourselves than others think of themselves? And if we are that enlightened or saved, the world should listen to us. For we, or our leaders, are the only ones who have and understand God's Word. And because of that, we are the only ones who can help the world solve its problems.

Of course, we should define narcissism. Narcissism occurs in the presence of an extreme degree of self-admiration and self-absorption. For one to be classified as experiencing narcissism, one must have at least 5 of the 9 major traits listed at the end of the blogpost. We should also note that both individuals and whole groups can suffer from narcissism (click here). We should also note that when you have a group or collective narcissism, the individual members may not be narcissistic, but the group functions as being narcissistic. And it should not be too hard to see how the patriotic and biblical emphasis on the uniqueness on our uniqueness would not only cause us to believe that we above others, but that we are entitled to be so recognized. And this is especially true when so much is at stake, such as our prosperity.

Finally, we have tribalism. Tribalism refers to the degree of loyalty we exhibit for a group. When the degree becomes great enough, we say that there is tribalism. Here we should note that all of us belong to multiple groups. Two of the major reasons why we belong to groups is for feeling significant and obtaining security.

From a moral point of view, we can say that tribalism occurs when loyalty to a group trumps commitment to morals and principles so that what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. Thus in the end, besides the 3 traits of tribalism listed in the Reference and Traits section, we could add one more trait implied by our definition of tribalism: defensiveness.

We should only note that the Old Testament is full of tribalism. It starts with belonging to the right family, then it proceeds to belonging to one of the right tribes. It finishes with belonging to the right nation. And in the meantime, some horrible acts of war committed against civilians were sanctioned by God for His people only.

The New Testament is better only in that God's people were not commanded to war against others. But the Church now becomes the tribe to which we should be most loyal. In fact, Denny Burk, a Conservative Christian theologian and blogger has just reinterpreted the phrase 'the least of these' from Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats to referring to Christians only (click here for Denny Burk's blogpost, click there for Jesus' parable). Having the Church as our main tribe is how we are to separate ourselves from the world.

Again, the traits for each of the isms are listed below in the section References and Traits. However, below is a picture illustrating some of the traits each ism has as well as shared traits. Some of the traits in the picture are summations or are derived from the individual traits listed in Reference and Traits section. 

Traits of the isms

We should note the traits shared by two or more of the isms include

• believes one is superior to others
• is hostile to others or to differences
• believes in power
• projects faults on others
• practices conformity
• is defensive

We should note regarding the shared traits, belief in one's own or one's group superiority could easily foster the belief in the authority of one's group. With that comes the expectations that people conform to the group's expectations and acknowledge the group's status. That, as is in the case of any authoritarian, acknowledgment of weaknesses by the group would diminish the credentials of the group and could thus be met with hostility when those weaknesses are mentioned. This interplay is but one example of how these isms with their trait are interrelated.

Whether Conservative Christians are more at risk of falling for any or all of these isms can be determined by observation, especially when observing the Church under trying circumstances. So we could simply ask ourselves this question: Are the traits listed under shared traits or those that accompany just one ism what we are observing in the majority of Christians during times of controversy such as the same-sex marriage issue? For if that is what people are seeing, we should note that we are failing in providing a credible witness to the Gospel.

References and Traits

--Note that these traits are quoted from the websites provided--

Some traits of authoritarianism (see http://www.psychologistworld.com/influence_personality/authoritarian_personality.php )

1. Blind allegiance to conventional beliefs
2. Belief in aggression to those who do not subscribe to conventional thinking or who are different
3. A negative view of people in general
4. A need for strong leadership which displays uncompromising power
5. A black-white worldview
6. A tendency to project one's own feelings of inadequacy, rage and fear onto a scapegoated group

Traits of narcissism

(see http://psychcentral.com/disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder-symptoms/ )

1. Grandiose sense of self-importance
2. Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. Believes that he or she is special or unique
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a very strong sense of entitlement
6. Is exploitive of others
7. Lacks empathy
8. Is often envious of others
9. Regularly shows arrogant, haughty behavior toward others

Other traits (see https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201311/6-signs-narcissism-you-may-not-know-about )

1. Highly reactive to criticism
2. Low self-esteem
3. Inordinately self-righteous and defensive
4. React to contrary viewpoints with anger  or rage
5. Project onto others qualities, traits, and behaviors they can't--or won't--accept in themselves
6. Have poor interpersonal boundaries

Traits of tribalism (see https://staffanspersonalityblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/the-personality-of-tribalism/ )

1. They view their own group, called the ingroup, superior to other groups, called outgroup
2. They conform to their group norms
3. They favor their ingroups while being hostile to outgroups

What Was Obama's Sin At The National Prayer Breakfast?

A few days ago, Obama made some controversial remarks at the breakfast honoring the National Day of Prayer (click here for full speech, Obama should need no biography). How did Obama sin in what he said? That depends on whom you ask. For his comments have certainly upset a group of Conservative Christians who form an alliance between Evangelicals and Conservative Catholics. This blog will offer its own criticisms after discussing the criticisms of this group. Examples of Conservative Christians criticizing the President's remarks can be found here: Ben Carson's remarks, Ravi Zacharias' remarks, and Thomas Madden's remarks.

What got Obama in trouble with the group mentioned above is that in addition to warning us not to use our religious faith as an excuse or camouflage for hatred and violence, we should not use the violence practiced by groups like ISIL to look down our noses at all Muslims. Why? It is because we should remember the violence our spiritual ancestors practiced in the name of Christ in such examples ventures as the Crusades, the Inquisition, and what was practiced in Jim Crow. Such, especially the implicit criticism of the Crusades and the Inquisition drew much criticism from the Christian group cited above. The criticisms of Obama and his comments centered on two themes: the questionable political wisdom of his statements and an alleged inaccurate assessment of the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Criticizing Obama's political wisdom for making his statements is simply saying that his sin at the prayer breakfast was violating the greatest commandment for all Presidential speeches including the State Of The Union Address. That commandment says this: We must be praised. Only the we in this case was not the government, the nation, nor his fellow citizens. The we here are our spiritual ancestors: the Church. And when talking about the Crusades and the Inquisition, the reference to the Church is even more specific: it is the Roman Church and its Pope. And if we understand that many of those who are upset belong to above cited alliance, the reaction becomes understandable. Their response to what could be discrediting to an important institution of theirs shows a tribalism and an authoritarian mindset. Their anger at Obama's criticisms of that period of Christian history reveals the loyalty they have to the Church. Their anger also shows their authoritarian side in that Obama's criticisms could easily appear to threaten acceptance of Church authority now because of they sense a discrediting of the Church back then.

We should also note one other point here. When one responds with anger because either that person or their authority figure has been rejected, it COULD  indicate problems with narcissism. We must be careful not to jump to conclusions here. There are nine indicators for Narcissism of which at least five must be present for the diagnosis to be made (click here and there). This is not to say that the individuals themselves who are angry must be narcissists. We should note, however, that there is such a thing as a group or collective narcissism where the group exists in the minds of its members and operates as if it has narcissism. And, collective narcissism can be related to the degree to which a group is idealized by its members (click here).

Here, we might want to compare the defensiveness that these Christians are exhibiting with Obama's reactions to the past. While the group of Christians cited above were defensive and at least partially denied the significance of the past violence committed by fellow Christians, Obama was saddened and reflective. Obama used some of Christianity's past as a reason to exercise restraint in criticizing followers of another religion. At this point, it might be educational to reference Jesus' parable of the two men praying (click here) and ask, whose actions resembled the actions of the person who, in the parable, went home justified? At the same time, who more resembled the Pharisee from the parable?

The ironic problem here is that those who are self-proclaimed champions of God's Word, at least in comparison with the President, seem to be more like the self-righteous pharisee by their reaction to the President's criticisms of the Church from the past. Of course,  we should have seen that coming realizing that the Pharisee, as Frederick Dale Bruner pointed out in his book A Theology Of The Holy Spirit (click here), were 'religious professionals.'

So, especially when we look at history, Obama should be counted as being off the hook for his statements about some of the dark moments of Christianity's past. But does that mean that Obama made no major errors during his talk?

At this point, we need to listen to when he talks about how faith starts with doubt and that no religion should think that they have a monopoly on God's truth. Here, some nuance is required.

On the one hand, no faith has a monopoly on doing God inspired good works. All of Romans 2 (click here) testifies to this assertion in order to show those who believe in God that they have no right to judge those who don't believe. They have no right because they commit the same sins as the unbeliever (see verse 1ff).

But at the same time, we also must do justice to what Jesus says when he claims to be the only way to the Father (click here). At this point, God's Word is clear concerning every faith. It is Jesus alone who leads us to the Father. It is Jesus who must qualify anyone to be acceptable to God. 

Therefore, the nuance we need regarding the uniqueness of the Christian faith is this: it is Jesus who makes the Christian Faith what it is compared to the other faiths. It is Jesus who makes the Christian faith unique. It is Jesus who makes the Christian faith exclusive. It is Jesus, not His followers that gives the Christian Faith a monopoly on finding the way to God. This is something Obama failed to point out. 

Why did Obama fail? Perhaps it was the setting. Or perhaps he was compromising his faith. Or perhaps he doesn't adequately understand the Christian Faith. Regardless of why, Obama failed to describe why the Christian Faith is above all other faiths. It isn't because of us followers. Us followers can easily make Christianity appear to be no different than any other religion.  But Jesus makes Christianity the way to God.

That final point brings us back to the overly defensive reaction some Conservative Christians have shown to the President's remarks about our past. And the question that must be asked of these Christians is this: If Jesus is the one that makes the Christian Faith special, why should people finding faults with the Church make us feel so threatened?

What Patriotism/Nationalism Can Become

The tragic slaughter of 3 Israeli teens along with the cruel reprisals serve as a reminder of the destination for all who passionately embrace patriotism. Noting that patriotism is a kind of tribalism. And tribalism occurs when group loyalty is so high that it becomes more important than commitment to principles and morals. The end effect is that people who have such loyalty define good and evil by who does what to whom. And patriotism can be a form of tribalism where the group being paid such allegiance to is one's own nation. 

Thus Israeli patriotism can cause Israelis to be untouched by the suffering their government forces on others, we should note that Palestinians are not the only targets of Israeli aggression, in their name. Yet, let one of their own be a victim of reprisal then vengeance not only becomes the righteous demand of the day, it covers a multitude of sins. Why? Because what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. This is survival and all's fair when one is only trying to survive. However, such an ethic becomes the poisoned apple to the soul of a nation.

Palestinian patriotism can work just the same. After all, because of the disparity in military strength between the two groups, haven't they suffered far more at the hands of their enemies than the Israelis have. Statistics from the B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, clearly show the translation of the military disparity into the number of those who suffer from each side (click here). The Palestinian thinking, which is if we strike back, perhaps they will understand how we live, makes the Israeli government with its military and Palestinian armed resistance groups mirror images of each other. 

We also have to add the mentality of the settlers regarding the land in the Occupied territories, which can be summed up by what one settler told me. He said that they view that land as their inheritance. In other words, they feel entitled to the land regardless of whether it is inhabited or not, regardless of the families they are displacing. And their, not the military's, raced based treatment of Palestinians can rival any bigotry seen in the U.S. prior to the Civil Rights movement. One Palestinian born again Christian told me that the settlers posed a greater threat to his safety than Hamas does.

What explains the mentality of becoming enraged when one's own group is attacked while exhibiting either joy or no human concern at the suffering of the other. Perhaps we can list some other traits that also have been observed by those paying attention.

• an unrealistic sense of self-importance
• preoccupied with the idea of success, power, and such
• a belief that one is special
• requires an inordinate amount of praise
• has a sense of entitlement
• tends to exploit others
• has little to no empathy for others
• believes that others are jealous of them
• is arrogant
• strongly objects to criticism
• can exhibit a greater than normal self-righteousness
• can explode at opposing viewpoints
• projects their faults on others
• has a poor sense of boundaries with others

Note that, according to Dr. Leon Seltzer, if at least 5 of the first 9 characteristics are present, then one is suffering from narcissism (click here). The latter five characteristics summarizes the behaviors Seltzer has observed in narcissists. We should note that narcissism can be suffered by groups as well as individuals. And group narcissism does not require the presence of individuals who are narcissistic. We should also note that the groups mentioned here do not have a monopoly on group or "collective narcissism." And we should note the relationship between "collective narcissism" and aggression (click here). Can we now begin to understand some of the costs to our souls which unchecked patriotism/nationalism might extract?

But there is another problem that looms more ominously over our future. Just as there is a tipping point with our environment where we can reach a point of no return with regards to the damage we have caused, there is a tipping point where the violence practiced by two groups against each other extracts, such an emotional toll, that humanity and rationality will be thrown away when dealing with the other side for a prolonged period of time. An example of such a tipping point being crossed can be found in WW II's Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. When one looks at the treatment of the Germans by the invading Russians, such as the raping of millions of German women by invading Soviet soldiers, by itself, we get a different picture of the Soviet soldiers than we would get if we study closely the brutal inhumanity which the Germans first visited on Soviet citizens when they were invading the Soviet Union.

As Israelis and Palestinians practice one cruel attack after another on each other, they make it more and more likely that the cruelty practiced by the other side will spiral out of control which could result in a physical or spiritual total devastation. We should note here that once the tipping point is reached, this could very well be natural. The more one feels threatened, the more one clings to one's own group. And the more one clings to one's own group, the more one practice the kind of tribalism that ensures one's own demise on a soul and/or physical levels. 

We should also note the dilemma that that rest of us find ourselves in. For conflict is not needed to spur one to a kind of self-destructive patriotism. The cultural values of our society sometimes rewards this kind of patriotism. Our culture will tell us that the more patriotic we are, the more noble we are because we are giving ourselves to a cause greater than ourselves. But what we could end up lending ourselves to, when following this siren call, a very unhealthy state of mind for most, if not all, involved.

Who Is Corrupting Whom Between Church And Society

Gregory Reynolds, from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), recently wrote a couple of articles for the OPC about the effects which egalitarianism has on church offices and their functioning (click here for the online article). He has written these articles from an OPC perspective. We should note that the OPC, which is the denomination I belong to, is a strongly conservative, fundamentalist denomination that adheres to a presbyterian form of church government. This form of government relies on the teaching and leadership of elders (known as presbyters) and service from deacons. Elders are elected by the congregation and can be divided into two groups: ruling elders and teaching elders. A preacher would be considered to be a teaching elder. And just a side note here, I went to seminary with Reynolds but either I didn't know him or I forgot who he was.

Reynolds wrote this article to warn us about the corrosive effect that egalitarianism, which is the word he uses to describe the "destructive aspect of the democratic mindset," has on the Church. And though he explicitly states that he doesn't want to put down democracy whether it's kind espoused by our Founding Fathers or how it is currently thought of, one cannot help but notice how he, and possibly Christians like him, looks down on some vital parts of democracy.

That Reynolds sees egalitarianism as a threat to church life should come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the OPC. The OPC, like most conservative, reformed denominations, is authoritarian in both spirit and structure. And in a church context, that is not always bad. In fact, the Scriptures describe a number of authoritarian relationships for believers to live in. There are authoritarian relationships in the family. The wife is to submit to the husband and the children are to submit to the parents. Then, as mentioned before, there are authoritarian relationships in any church. The ruling elders help make decisions and apply discipline. The preacher is a teaching elder who interprets the Word of God to the people. There is also a certain level of submission to the confessions and catechisms that is expected. In addition, every church is to submit to the presbytery and its decisions. And finally we are told to submit to the government. 

However, there is one problem with living life in a denomination in which authoritarianism is its middle name, one sometimes loses the ability to turn the authoritarian switch off. This ability is necessary once one leaves church on Sunday and lives in a democratic, pluralistic society. And so it should come as no surprise that Reynolds rejects the influence that egalitarianism has on Church. He sees is as destructive to both society and the Church because it interferes with people submitting to the authorities and institutions which God has placed over us. And in threatening these authorities and institutions, egalitarianism puts at risk that which made this country "great." This is because egalitarianism plants ideas in people's heads that give them the confidence and conviction to question authority.

So Reynolds challenges egalitarianism in a number of ways. The first of which is to label egalitarian notions as narcissistic. The ideas which he is targeting are: “I have rights; my opinion is as important as anyone’s; I am equal to others in every way; I have a right to education, peace, prosperity, healthcare, and recreation; and I may believe and say what I like; and I may do what I like as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.” In calling such beliefs, 'narcissistic,' Reynolds is making one of two mistakes. He is either confusing increased self-awareness and a demand for dignity with narcissism or, as in the conviction that one's opinion is as good as another, he doesn't understand what people are saying here. For some who believe that their opinion is as good as another's will listen to the opinions of others while some will not. 

What we should note here is the ease with which the narcissism label is used by Reynolds and also others. Anthony Bradley has claimed that people from a number of Christian groups that revolve around Millenials (click here) are prone to suffer from narcissism. The narcissistic signs Bradley uses includes when people look for special ways of living out their Christian faith (such as the Missional Church, see here), insisting that internships should be paid (click here), and leaving the Church with nowhere else to go (see here). The characteristics that tell Bradley that narcissism is involved includes the search for something special and a sense of entitlement. But those characteristics by themselves do not imply narcissism.

Then what is narcissism? There are a number of sources we can consult to answer this question. Each source tells us that it takes a number personal traits to confirm narcissism with its chief characteristic being the belief in one's own superiority or the superiority of the group(s) with which one is associated. Thus feeling entitled by itself is not evidence of narcissism. But believing that one deserves more than one's peers could be--note this is only an indicator--because narcissism involves a combination of more than two signs. So wanting something out of the ordinary is not a sign of narcissism, but wanting to be special so that one is above others just might be.

When we return to the egalitarian notions, we see that narcissism is not involved. Elevating oneself so that one is considered to be an equal with others cannot be narcissistic unless the others make up a elite group of people and it is done for the purpose of looking down on the masses. And insisting on one's rights is not the same as when one feels entitled to more because one believes that they are superior to others. 

Thus, when we compare the traits of narcissism (see here and there) with those of egalitarianism (listed earlier), we find that the two are disjoint. The former describes those who feel superior, who feel entitled to more than others, and who are overly sensitive while the latter is looking for equality, and we could add basic human dignity.

But there is an ism group that one should be leery of with regard to narcissism. That group consists of those who favor authoritarianism (click here). It is not that narcissism and authoritarianism are the same. But if we note how both respond to the lack of submission to or criticism of those who are superior or accepted authority figures, the two seem to dovetail each other and are quite compatible. Thus, we might say that power and authority are narcissists magnets while narcissism could be the raison d'etre for many authoritarians (click here for an additional source supporting the connection between authoritarianism and narcissism). 

The ties between authoritarianism and narcissism does not exonerate all who reject authority. There is a rejection of authority where those involved never recognize the need to even consider what those in authority say or have said. In contrast to that, there are egalitarians who believe that they are qualified to reasonably disagree with those in authority. The former group could be embracing narcissism while the latter group is not regardless of any mistakes made or even rebellion engaged in. The point to be made here is that Reynolds's comment that democracy du jour, which is largely based on egalitarianism, latches on to "narcissistic notions" is not only wrong, it could possibly be an example of projection. In fact, all of us Conservative Christians must beware of falling into the narcissism trap because not only do we tend to be authoritarian, our faith teaches us a certain exclusivity and we believe in the superior status of certain heros of the faith along with believing in the deity of Christ.

So while Reynolds is fearful of egalitarianism and how it might lead people to reject the authority of those who hold certain church offices, should those who value democracy worry about Conservative Christians such as Reynolds? After all, Reynolds laments over how today's democratic mindset is different from that of our Founding Fathers' and their republicanism. In addition, Reynolds sees this egalitarian-based democratic spirit as interfering with the institutions that made our country 'great.' But one has to ask, when was our country great? We have to ask this because we can derive what qualities Reynolds uses to measure the greatness of a nation from the time period(s) he picks. But more importantly, non Christians have to ask how much of a risk to democracy do Conservative Christians, like Reynolds, pose because of their emphasis on authority. This is especially true with Reynolds's view of our nation's Founding Fathers.  

In his article, Reynolds seems to liken the "federalist idea," which he cites from Rev John Thompson, of the relationship between the ruling elders and the congregation to the relationship between our elected officials and the citizens as according to the Constitution. But at the same time, he describes the Constitution as having limited the power of the federal government. This is somewhat contradictory and incorrect because elected elders are meant to rule over the congregation, though they are also considered to be the congregation's representatives while the Constitution expanded the power of the Federal government rather having limited it. 

Though the Constitution itself may not appear to be advocating more federal powers and government control, the context of the writing of the Constitution tells us that such was the case. The writing and promotion of the Constitution was in response to rebellion, popular unrest, and a particular faction of people whose objectives would have upset the status quo and weakened the ruling class--who were the landed interest. This is all evident in, Shay's Rebellion,  Henry Knox's letter to George Washington, the Constitutional debates especially in the discussions regarding the Senate, and Madison's Federalist Paper #10. Thus, the Constitution brought into play a stronger federal government. And this was done for the sake of the "minority of the opulent," as Madison said.

As Reynolds classifies egalitarianism as an attempt to be equal with God, which has some merit but only in a religious/spiritual setting, we must wonder how such thinking can lead Conservative Christians to not only limit democracy outside of the Church, but to fall in line with the age-old criticism of the Church. That criticism says that the Church is just another institution of indoctrination to maintain the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power. The Conservative Church does this by teaching its congregation to submit to authority rather than to challenge it, especially when the Republicans are in charge, and to focus on repenting from personal sins while remaining silent about social sins. We should remember that the Old Testament prophets, such as, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Amos, saw as part of God's call on their lives the duty to preach against the social sins of both God's people and of the surrounding nations.

Now what Reynolds says about the Church's offices is biblically kosher and takes up a good part of the article. But, his fear-led disdain, remember that fear is the path to the Dark Side, for popular democracy, which oozes with egalitarianism, should make those who want more self-rule with their democracy uneasy. For not only will his thinking arrest the Church from performing its prophetic call to preach against all sins, Conservative Christian citizens will politically push for a more authoritarian democracy, somewhat depending on which party is in power, where the measure of what is good for the country is based more on sectarian beliefs than on the voice of the people. And such leads to more elite-centered political and economic systems as well as runs counter to the First Amendment.