Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 15, 2023

Feb 22

To Heidelblog and Ari Schaffer for the part of Schaffer's article that reported on the Buckley Program' Eighth Annual College Student Survey. 

The survey has some problems in the options provided. One major problem is that many of the categories for the choice of answers are not well-defined. For example, when asking students if they feel uncomfortable with giving a dissenting opinion to classmates or professors, the selection of answers are 'Frequently,' 'Sometimes,' 'Rarely,' and 'Never.' Three of those answers are not well-defined. In addition, 'Frequently' and 'Sometimes' are grouped as categorized as 'Often' whereas 'Rarely' and 'Never' are counted as 'Not Often.'  To further complicate the issue, the mathematical definition of the word 'some' is at least 1. That could mean that when students answered 'Sometimes,' they could have meant 'Rarely' and vice-versa.

In addition, the existence of free speech is expressed in binary terms. If hate speech, and that goes undefined, is allowed, then this is counted as being an infringement on free speech and the First Amendment. But yelling 'fire' in a public space is against the law. Is that an infringement on Free Speech? Would some forms of labeling or describing people from a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity a threat to society be similar yelling 'fire' in a public place when some of those statements led to violence against those of a given race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity?

Are we aware that denying the Holocaust is illegal in some European countries? If that was the case here, would that be an infringement on the First Amendment? Is denying the existence of systemic racism in America today on par with denying the Holocaust in some European countries? 

And why isn't this blog post including the efforts of Governors DeSantis and Abbott in their report on Free Speech on campuses? Why are teachers and professors afraid of talking about America's past in certain states like Florida or Texas?

Finally, without providing definitions for both socialism and capitalism, the data is insignificant. Which form of capitalism was referred to in the survey? Was it the Bretton-Woods System or Neoliberal Capitalism? This is an important question because the conservative definitions of capitalism and socialism since the Bretton-Woods system of capitalism allows for far more government intervention than Neoliberal Capitalism. 

Which form of socialism was referred to in the survey? Was it Stalinism, which many Marxists do not think of as Socialism, or was it the form that emphasizes the redistribution of power to the workers? Here we should note that Germany's codetermination. laws makes Germany's economic system a hybrid of both Marxism and capitalism.  Or, again, did students use the conservative definition of socialism--big government--while answering the question? Were the students who answered the question about capitalism and socialism aware of all of those distinctions?

The above findings are flawed because the survey was flawed by utilizing not well-defined terms in its answers. But that won't stop some conservatives from using the change in statistics over the years to sound the alarm and incite fear where fear is not warranted.

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

Feb 25

To Thaddeus Kozinski and his article that reviews what has occurred since the end of Christendom and calls for Christendom's return. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

When we look at what has blossomed since the end of Christendom, as listed in the above article, we must realize one point: what Christendom has suppressed. And when we look at what Christendom has suppressed and what has flourished in its absence, we need to ask why would we ever want a return to Christendom.

We should note in this Post Modern age, that Pre Modernism and Modernism has not totally left the world. Pre Modernism is alive and well within most of the major players who're engaged in committing atrocities today. That means that we can't scapegoat secularism for today's threats. And where we can blame secularism, we should note a common thread that is shared by those remnants of Pre Modernism that is producing atrocities: authoritarianism. And when one looks at the definition of Christendom, we need to ask if it is possible to have a Christendom that is lacking in authoritarianism.

Until we can find a form of Christendom that is void of authoritarianism, selling  Christendom today should be near impossible to the outside world. In fact, if we look at how we should share society with those who believe differently, perhaps we should leave Christendom on the ash heap of history and then go on to study how we Christians can contribute to a truly pluralistic and peaceful society and world. Of course one way in which we can contribute to such a world is to tolerate all others who seek such a society and world. But such toleration means forsaking our authoritarian proclivities.

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

To Joseph Mussomeli and his article on the Russian war against Ukraine. In his article, Musomelli has criticized the American involvement in the war as a search for the perfect war. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Though lessons from WW II abound on both sides of Russia's war against Ukraine, to make Hitler the focal point in trying to understand Putin is a grave error.

The lessons that abound from WW II involve Russia's history with invasions from the West and Europe's history with Imperial dreams starting with one invasion and then advancing an invasion or concession at a time. Both sensitivities are valid. And what goes unmentioned is that NATO's move eastward violated the understanding of the agreement made between Bush I and Gorbachev. Gorbachev stated that in his book, <I>The New Russia</I>.

But to understand what we can from Putin, we should keep our eyes focused on Russian history rather than turning our gaze toward Hitler. Before the October, 1917 Revolution stood the Russian Empire governed by the Tsars. For most of those Tsars, authoritarianism was to Russia what Christendom was to America. The Tsars so identified themselves with the nation of Russia that they believed that any opposition to them was a challenge to the nation itself. Lenin continued that same mentality only with using different labels such as 'proletariat' or 'revolution' for 'Russia' and 'Soviet Union' for 'Russian Empire.'  Stalin was Lenin on steroids. Khrushchev brought a brief reprieve that was only repeated by his successors. And it wasn't until Gorbachev that we saw a significantly real break in Russia's authoritarianism. That authoritarianism started to resurrect itself when Yeltsin had power.

Who knows what Putin wants and what is going on in his mind? Nobody knows enough for sure, but we are seeing repeats of Russian and Soviet Union history in Putin's words and actions. And we only need to look at Putin's authoritarian rule over his own people, his history in Chechnya and Georgia,  and his stated reasons, which seemed to have resembled Bush II when defending his own invasion of Iraq, for the invasion against Ukraine.

Putin is attempting to silence Russians's opposition to the war with arrests and imprisonment at home and threats and attempts at intimidation outside of Russia. Putin claims that Ukrainians are Russians. Putin, via the Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, has stated that the 'special operation' is necessary to protect Russia from Western decadence. And, btw, it is Putin who is pointing to the Nazis by claiming that he trying to de-nazify Ukraine. Putin has made references to the NATO threat to Russia from Ukraine. And Putin has reportedly written about renewing the Russian Empire. If that is true, and there is evidence that supports that in Belarus, then though Germany is safe, quite a few other nations are not. There is also the Rodney Dangerfield complaint that Putin believes that Russia gets no respect. That complaint was one of the reported reasons why Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba.

It appears that no current world leader has either read the Russell-Einstein Manifesto or, if they had remembers it. That Manifesto clearly states that in the nuclear age we have a choice between relying on war and existence. And yet, imperialism cannot be tolerated--a lesson learned from WW II. That puts us between a rock and a hard place, none of which was recognized in the above article despite the some of the good but irrelevant points it made.

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

March 7

To Scott McDermand and the first of 2 planned articles which partially layout a case for and defend the Regulative Principle of worship as promoted by the Reformers. This article was posted by Heidelblog.

There are multiple problems with the regulative principle for worship. They include:

1.   The interpretation of the 2nd Commandment used to claim and defend the regulative principle goes well beyond any plain reading of the that commandment. For in that commandment, God only tells us about a certain set of objects that we cannot make as well as a worship practice that we must not employ.  That is simply the plain reading of the 2nd Commandment. To say anything beyond that is to read into the Scriptures.

2.    Yes, other parts of the Old Testament specify exactly how God must be worshiped, but those ways are based on both man's standing with God before Christ died and rose again and how those ways of worship were shadows of and thus what would be fulfilled and thus made useless by Christ's 1st coming. To insist on the regulative principle is to employ an Old Testament mentality on the New Testament community. Here, we should remember about what Jesus said to the woman at the well in John 4: that there will come a time when instead of having to go to Jerusalem, we must worship God in spirit and in truth.

Having said that, there is something to learn from the regulative principle. That care must be taken in how we approach the worship of God. When we are not reverent enough in how we approach the worship of God, it is because we are being presumptuous about our standing before God. For we can only stand before and worship God because of God's grace and mercy which has been shown to and showered on those who believe in Christ. Again, we are to worship God in spirit and in truth. Thus, we must worship God in reverence acknowledging our unworthiness, outside of what Christ has done for us, to worship God in His house.

3.    The regulative principle was not practiced by Jesus nor by the Jews both before and when Jesus came to earth. In fact, there is no regulative principle described in the New Testament. Paul does describe how believers were coming together to worship; but that was simply a description, not an exclusive set of rules.

We should note something else here. When the regulative principle is generalized to other practices and approaches outside of worship, we, paradoxically, limit how we can use the New Testament to guide how we live when we meet circumstances and situations that were not experienced in the New Testament. 

At the same time, we must remember Romans 14 when fellowshipping with fellow believers who adhere to the regulative principle as they must do the same with fellowshipping with fellow believers who abide by the normative principle. The latter says that we must refrain from worshiping and living before God in ways forbidden by God's Word.

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

March 9

To R. Scott Clark and his blog post against Christian Transformationalism because the New Testament calls us to be pilgrims and aliens, not transformers. This appeared in Heidelblog.

A weakness in Transformationalism which Clark did not point out is that, in the end, it is antithetical to democracy. In the end, it seeks a privileged position for Christianity in and over society. 

It is true that we are aliens in the world, though our lifestyles might not reflect that when we are financially privileged. But what does being an alien in this world prohibit Christians from doing when interacting with the world?

There are 2 weaknesses with 2KT, which is Clark's position. The first is its failure to acknowledge that to extent that it pushes natural law on society, it too is a form of transformationalism. This is especially apparent in how it views sexual issues, especially homosexuality. That same sex behavior is demonstrated in around 1,500 species of animals shows that the natural law being pushed by 2KT is a Christian view of natural law.

The 2nd weakness of 2KT is that it prohibits the Church from speaking out as an institution against corporate sins. Corporate sins such as systemic racism, economic exploitation and classism, sexism and patriarchy, immoral wars, a renewed arms race and militarism, and destroying the earth's ability to adequately sustain human life either because of pollution and/or climate change must be visibly opposed by the Church as an institution. When the Church does not publicly speak out against these sins, it becomes complicit with them. 

And though I  disagree with Clark's overall position here, I do agree  with him when he says that the Church is not charged to bring a golden age onto the earth. But opposing corporate sins and working for social justice does not imply that one is working for an ecclesiastical golden age. Neither does opposing corporate sins and working for social justice imply that one is working to establish a  privileged place for the Church in society. 

If we want to look at a good example of the Church as an institution speaking out against corporate sins, then we need to look no farther than what Martin Luther King Jr. and the SCLC did and said during the era of the Civil Rights Movement. Though King had golden age visions, what he and the SCLC opposed and what they promoted neither brought a golden age to America nor did it establish a privileged position for the Church in and over society. King and the SCLC simply opposed the sins of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism while promoting the rights and welfare of people without respect to religion. And where the Church was silent on racism, economic exploitation, and militarism back then, it was complicit with those sins just as the Church would be complicit if it didn't warn people against sexual immorality.

Of course, there is an immediate earthly advantage for the Church to be silent about corporate sins. That advantage is that that silence allows the Church to support those with wealth and power when those with wealth and power benefit from the committing of those corporate sins. But that kind of support should offend the Church since those in the Church are called to be aliens in this world.

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

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the portion of Trueman's article that was quoted from in this particular Heidelblog post. Trueman's article challenged evangelical leaders to be as courageous as J.K. Rowling was when she claimed that trans women are not women.

Trueman's article can be found at:

https://wng.org/opinions/are-evangelical-leaders-as-courageous-as-j-k-rowling-1677156614

 Carl's article contains nothing more than an authoritarian discourse aimed at refusing to distinguish those who have been helped by gender affirming care from those who are not. 

It is authoritarian because it involves a kind of all-or-nothing thinking about those who have been helped from receiving some level of gender-affirming care and those who provide it. His lack of precision and making distinctions in the different kinds of treatments that children with gender dysphoria are given is another example of a kind of all-or-nothing thinking he employs. And that kind of thinking is seen in his calling people evil in an emotional rant wrapped in  labels. In addition, Trueman's view of gender-affirming care do not seem to reflect J.K. Rowling on transgenderism. Rather, it seems that Trueman's mentality and approach to the subject has more in common with the critics of Rowling than Rowling herself.

If Trueman were to actually employ a rational argument, he would make meaningful distinctions like some of the ones mentioned above. If here were to employ a rational argument, he could borrow an argument from Robert Jensen, who is a leftist,  who looks at the Transgender issue from a feminist perspective. In arguing against allowing males who have transgendered into females to participate in women's sports, Jensen points out that one cannot  conflate gender identity with biological sex because while the former is psychological, the latter is biological--btw, that seems to be J.K. Rowling's view from what I read. Thus the two, biological sex and gender identity, could never be merged. And that those who started as biological males had a physical  advantage over cisgendered females in sports.

But then again, to refuse to conflate gender identity with biological sex on a consistent basis, Trueman and others would have to admit that biological sex is not the only factor involved in one's gender identity. But such an admission would go against a conservative authoritarian mindset.

Because many people have received help from gender affirming care and because we don't know all of the factors involved with  what causes people to experience gender dysphoria and seek a change in genders, we need to both talk with the awareness that  when talking we are walking on thin ice while remaining firm with our Scriptural convictions that transgenderism is wrong. That means that the issue of transgenderism is complicated. But those who prefer to make authoritarian appeals view complexity in the same way that Superman regards kryptonite.

Keeping up with the times in terms of knowledge does not imply that we must change our moral beliefs or shed religiously conservative convictions. Keeping up with the times means that we need to seek wisdom and understanding in order to grapple with today's issues while remaining faithful to the Scriptures. The kind of thinking involved in authoritarianism sees little to no need to seek wisdom and understanding here.

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blog For February 15, 2023

Feb 7

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman regarding his remarks during a Heidelblog podcast which said that the Church as an institution is not to call on society to change.

And so the Church as an institution is suppose to reprimand society for its sexual immorality and acceptance of abortion, but it is suppose to keep silent when the nation wages immoral wars, has a lifestyle that continually pollutes the world and contributes to increasing climate change, embraces an economy that continues to increase the wealth disparity between the classes and races, and continues in its systemic racism? Of course, I left out a few things.

If the Church is to call on the sinners to repent as part of preaching the Gospel, and people both commit personal sins and participate in corporate sins of the state and society, then the Church as an institution is to call on the state, society, and the people  that are apart of the state and society to repent of committing corporate sins, not just individual sins. Otherwise, the Church as an institution might find itself repeating the same sins that it has been committing in the past few centuries: siding with wealth and power.

I say all of that as one who believes that neither Transformationalism nor 2KT is either correct in everything or is wrong in everything.

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

Feb 8

To Heidelblog and Erick-Woods Erickson and his article that criticizes the movement and the message of the 'Jesus gets us' commercials on tv.

Erick-Woods Erickson's full article can be found at:

    https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/a-waste-of-money

Erick-Woods Erickson could have wasted lest time and words by saying the following: When cultural relevance takes precedence over God's Revelation of Himself, then we are taught that we are the ones who seek to change Christ rather than accepting the fact that it is Christ who changes those who believe. The difference between the two approaches could not be more binary. In the former, we are taught that we are to make Christ in our image. In the latter, Christ starts to conform those who believe into His image.

Other than that, Erickson simply exhibits the same kind of behavior of those he is criticizing by showing partiality to political conservatism.

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

To Kay Clarity and the reposting of her article that calls conservatives to arms to battle "terrorists" from the 'progressive left' who are censoring conservatives like herself. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Outside of recognizing that the above article was just an emotional tirade, this article is a call to arms without establishing the premise for such a call. The premise is claimed, but never defined and documented. Let alone the black-white world where "terrorists" from the 'progressive, radical left' are seeking to silence conservatives. Yes, there are some instances of where some conservatives have been shouted down or censored. But there is no documentation provided which supports that such silencing is widespread. On the other hand, we should note the actions taken by conservative state governments, such as those in Florida, Texas, and Missouri, that are seeking to censor and silence the teaching of Critical Race Theory or any other view of the history of racism in America that would infringe on one becoming an enthusiastically loyal American patriot.

The above is not just an emotional tirade, it is an authoritarian appeal. Unfortunately authoritarianism has infected not just some conservatives, but some liberals and some leftists as well. And it is authoritarianism that moves people to try to silence those whose views which it objects to. That applies regardless of the ideology of those seek to silent others. And so it applies to some who are conservatives, some who are liberals, and some who are leftists.

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

To Simon Joost on his blog article on applying 2K Theology (2KT) to how the Church should relate to the State in South Africa during the Post-Apartheid era. Joost seems to believe that, because of 2KT, there should be an apartheid between Church and State. But that apartheid approach is balanced by the promotion of Natural Law. Boost does not talk much about the promotion of Natural Law in this article. Joost's article appeared in the Heidelblog.

When we put our pet theologies and confessional standards on too high a pedestal, they become a canon for the canon of the Scriptures. We should never ignore those theologies and confessional standards because they consist of writings from Christian theologians and teachers of the past. We just can't put their content on too high a pedestal or we become traditionalists. The problem with traditionalism is that it serves as the other side of the coin of narcissism. And in being the other side of the coin of narcissism it shares some of narcissism's weaknesses. 

And so we come to Reformed 2KT and its interaction with the government. We should note that while the government deals with just the the relationships between people (the horizontal), the Church also deals with the relationships between people and God (the vertical). And 2KT is correct in producing a partial apartheid between the Church and State though that apartheid can't be so consistent and profound that the Church is not able to speak prophetically to the State. We should note that 2KT's major weakness is that it infringes either significantly or completely allowing and enabling the. Church to speak prophetically the state.

One factor should be considered here. When we identify as being a Christian, everything that we do and say and everything that we refrain from doing and saying can become identified with the Gospel and thus our stumbling bring can bring discredit to the Gospel. And that puts all of us Christians in the same sinking boat because as James says: ' We all stumble in many ways..' That admission from James implies that we should be gentle when feeling compelled to correct other Christians whom we perceive as hurting the reputation of the Gospel.

Certainly the Church as an institution should not try to run the state and society, which when it has happened has greatly harmed the reputation of the Gospel. Here, we should be cautious about promoting the idea that the State must enforce what the Church sees as natural law. The unnecessary promotion of natural law can be a backdoor approach to the Church trying to run the State. On the other hand, when the Church as an institution is reluctant to speak and act out against social injustices, it can, and has, brought just as much harm to the reputation of the Gospel as when the Church has tried to run or become the State.

Today, it seems that 2KT promoters use Natural Law to defend their insistence that the State must codify certain Biblical standards for sexual behavior while use 2KT to defend their silence on social injustices allowed, or even promoted, by the State. Such falls in line with the past few centuries of Church History where the Church has sorely pressed people regarding their individual behaviors while siding with wealth and power via silent complicity when it comes to not speaking prophetically to the State and society in the face of social injustices.  

We should also note one more point. Christians are called to suffer and even die without resisting their persutors for the sake of the Gospel. But are Christians called on to do the same when facing social injustices with unbelievers? That question was never directly addressed in the New Testament.

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

Feb 12

To Heidelblog and Samuel G. Parkinson for the part of Parkinson's article quoted by the Heidelblog post. Parkinson's article was about practicing the Regulative Principle and how including the reciting of creeds like the Nicene Creed should be included as part of the Regulative Principle.

Samuel G. Parkinson's full article can be found at:

    https://credomag.com/2023/01/the-regulative-principle-and-the-corporate-recitation-of-creeds/

From Parkinson's article, Parkinson seems like a traditionalist, which is the other side of the coin of being a narcissist. I say that not as an insult, though it sounds  like one, but in order to make a point. The point being that perhaps in deciding on following the Regulative Principle that he is elevating a certain set of time periods from the past above the present time so that if there could be an exchange of ideas between the two time periods, his set of time periods would have everything to teach and nothing to learn from the present time period. That is the problem with traditionalism. Narcissism, of course, reverses that teaching and learning direction.

Regarding the Regulative Principle, we don't see that principle stated, practiced, or promoted in the New Testament. There is no clear communication describing how worship must be to the exclusion of other practices. We might even add that the Regulative Principle was not followed by Jesus when He lived on earth. We can also add that there is no New Testament directive telling us to recite creeds during worship. But here we should also caution that whatever ways we choose to worship God, the attitude of worshiping God must be central to the ways we worship. 

We should that in Acts 15, the Apostles decided to reduce the requirements for Gentile believers to be counted as believers. Holding to the Regulative Principle for worship and the reciting of creeds during worship shows an attitude of adding to requirements for Gentile believers. It's not that we should refuse to recite creeds like the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, but it should be optional. Also, we should call into question the insistence on the holding to the Regulative Principle.

Finally, in describing the basis for the Regulative Principle for worship, there seems to be too much focus on the particulars so that follow the letter of the law while missing the spirit of the law. What is singing, preaching/teaching, and read but ways of communicate God's Word to His people. So what is most important here, that we sing, preach/teach, and read or that we communicate God's Word?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 21, 2017

June 14

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on the Regulative Principle. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I believe that the regulative principle is more destructive than constructive. This principle that we can only worship or run the Church by what is specifically commanded or explicitly shown by example in the Scriptures does not help the Church. In fact, it is more destructive because by not recognizing the full transition that came with the New Testament, this principle has transitioned from a fulfilling of a command to the building of a fence. And while keeping a fence can give the appearance of keeping God's commands, it sometimes actually interferes with doing what God wants us to do.

Even during the later Old Testament and intertestament times, we breaks with the command to only worship in way that were stipulate by what God said in the OT. For we see Jesus attending events that were not commanded in the OT. And when Jesus talks to the woman at the well, He announces that a transition has already taken place. We also see, in both synagogue worship and in the Feast of the Dedication of Jerusalem, forms of worship not stipulated by the Old Testament. Jesus attended both. We see in the NT a list of acts of worship in the NT that weren't stipulated by anyone but formed spontaneously. Speaking in tongues was one such act of worship. 

But we also need to go to Acts 15:10 see reasons why the regulative principle should not be followed. For in that passage, we see a fuller awareness by the Church of the transition that has taken place with the advent of the New Testament. For there, Peter asks, regarding circumcision, why should the Church put the same burden on Gentiles that no Jew had been able to bear. That burden was the Law. And in Peter's speech in Acts 15, we see Jesus' statement to the woman at the well becoming more and more apparent in the growth of the Church as it started to include Gentile believers with Jewish believers. From here, we might want to note how the Church transitions from what Jesus said, in Matthew 5, about reconciling with those one has offended with what Paul said in Corinthians about letting fellow believers offend one and  what Paul said in Ephesians about how those who steal should stop stealing.
My observation is this, those who follow the regulative principle are not only more unnecessarily judgmental of fellow believers who do not follow that principle, they limit the application of the Bible because they tend to not recognize the differences in historical context that exists between Apostolic times and today. It isn't that we are not still in New Testament times; but is that New Testament times are not a monolith. Some things have changed since the times of the Apostles

The beginning of New Testament times saw supernatural acts wrought by believers who were given miraculous gifts. In addition, there was the giving of God's Word in the New Testament. We don't see that today. During the times of the Apostles, we saw the chief concern of the Apostles being the spread of the Gospel. Today, the Gospel has already been spread throughout the world. During the times of the Apostles, we saw the Church living in a one empire dominated world. Today we have multiple empires as well as democracies. How the regulative principle can hurt us here is that it tends to lead to looking in specific commands and literal examples how to live in one world while we live in quite a different world. 

It isn't that there is nothing to learn from the regulative principle. The concern that we should be careful not to do what God doesn't want us to do applies as much today as it ever has. But beyond that, the regulative principle forces us to fit the context of either Old Testament times or the times of the Apostles into present times as we try to follow their words and actions and sometimes that results in trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

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

June 19

To Joseph Mussomeli and his blogpost on comparing America’s relationship Iran with that of Saudi Arabia and how we should change those relationships. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

There are many excellent points that Mussomeli made about Saudi Arabia and the strange relationship that the US has with that nation. This is especially true when he contrasts that relationship with our relationship with Iran.

But there is something amiss as well. For the reason why we have pursued our faulty relationship with Saudi Arabia is both praised and criticized. That reason has to do with the interests of one's own nation. My guess is that national interests (which often means business interests but can also mean strategic interests) is the reason why we let Saudi Arabia slide on so many issues. And letting certain nations slide on issues, such as human rights issues, is not new for us. In 1953, we replaced democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mosaddegh with the Shah who treated dissidents brutally, but the Shah served our business interests. Something similar happened in Guatemala in 1954 and Chile in 1973. So supporting Saudi Arabia with all of its trappings for national interests is not new to American foreign policy.

So why rationalize the acting in one's own interests by both our leaders and Israel's leaders when we see that acting in our own interests, even if that means tolerating the spread of a hostile religion and the tolerance of human rights abuses, has produced some rotten fruit in Saudi Arabia?

What we should note here is that the national interests of a nation can have several components including different components and different time periods. And thus a nation can have conflicting national interests in how it acts in a region or how it relates to a particular nation. In addition, we sometimes need to choose between acting in particular national interests and acting morally.

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

June 20

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost about how health care should be solved through solidarity via a subsidiary approach rather than through socialism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative website.

The above article sounds more like a turf battle between those who want the local communities to solve our problems vs the larger communities as represented by our various government associations. An indicator of this interpretation is seen in the the emotional rejection of government intrusion in providing health care. Of course, the context for that rejection includes government requiring Christian employers to provide kinds of healthcare options to employees that go against their conscience. But in addition to the turf battle, how the government solution to health care, or pretty much anything else dealing with individuals who live in families, is so negatively presented, it is pretty clear that all-or-nothing thinking is being employed here.

On a practical side we need to ask if local resources adequate to help everyone with health care. And we might especially ask that question for people who choose not to belong to the Church. And if they don't choose to follow Pearce's religious views, isn't our government obligated to represent them when they are in need? We might also note how Pearce sees the government as being obligated to follow the Roman Church's social teaching. Certainly, the government should listen to all proposed solutions. But what kind of religious liberty do we have when our representative government is required to follow Church teaching? 
Another indicator that all-or-nothing thinking is employed by Pearce is his definition of socialism in his subsidiary vs socialism model of thought. We should note that, at least from a Marxist perspective, large government programs does not make socialism. Marxist socialism puts the first emphasis on who is in control of both government and the workplace. Thus, when big government interferes, if workers do not have an equal or dominant voice in making the decisions, it isn't socialism. But that is besides the point. That the local has absolute sovereignty over any larger community where the larger community involves local, state, or federal government is the giveaway to such thinking. All this amounts to is a greater division within our nation than what exists. For our division is no longer just in terms of ideology, but, according to Pearce, it should be in terms of local communities as well. For Christians to fully benefit from what Pearce is proposing, then Christians would have to move into Christian communities. But then how could such Christians practice virtues like charity when they only participate in their own voluntary communities.But the local having precedence over the larger communities is not consistently followed by Pearce. For in joining Christian co-ops, one is joining a larger community. Thus, this isn't even a local community vs the world turf battle. Rather, the battle is between the communities one volunteers to be a member of vs society as represented by the various forms of government from local government to the federal government. And such does not provide a solution for everyone.

Pearce does well in recognizing the state of health care coverage before Obamacare. And he has a very legitimate concern over Christian employers having to provide for abortaficient drugs and abortions in their employee health care plans. But his all-or-nothing thinking has not created a viable approach for those who choose not to belong to the Church for certain, and possibly for those for whom Pearce wrote this article. For ties to the larger communities that are represented by governments aren't so easily cut nor should they be.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 27, 2016

April 19

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on society’s changing values especially those stemming from the new position that the LGBT community has achieved in society. This appeared in Heidelblog.

What religiously conservative American Christians have had the greatest difficulty with is knowing what to let go in society and what to battle for. Because many of us have grown up in a different time when Christian values held a stronger place in developing cultural and societal values, we look at each new change in our culture and society with shock and dismay. Though the dismay is often appropriate, the shock isn't. 

And because we have not made wise choices in knowing which cultural and societal values to battle, we have failed to share society with those who are different as equals. And more than anything else, our crusade to marginalize those from the LGBT community has stirred much greater anger than any differences that exist in our beliefs and values.

So as we critique, as is done above, society's newest values and trends, we need to know the natural boundaries of that critique as we share society with others as equals. It is unclear whether the above article articulates the location of those boundaries.

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

April 20

To Collin Hansen and his blogpost interview of Nabeel Qureshi from Ravi Zacharias’ Ministries on Christianity and Islam. This appeared in The Gospel Coalition website.

I find this post to be one of the most inadequate blogposts on a Christian's view of Islam ever. Which matters more about the person interviewed: is it that he was a former Muslim or that he currently works for a Western Christian apologist? And, btw, by describing Nabeel Qureshi's boss, Ravi Zecharias as a Western Christian apologist, we might include that he is as much a Wester apologist as he is a Christian one (see http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/top-christian-voice-west-being-taken-down-in-small-portions/   ). But we might want to note something else about Zacharias. There are serious questions regarding his past claims about some of his past positions and degrees (see http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2015/08/24/press-release-has-evangelist-ravi-zacharias-misrepresented-his-academic-credentials/  

The gist of the interview accessible above is this: if, according to Qureishi, Muslims faithfully follow their sacred writings, then not only will they be at war with Christians, they will join groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram. Though Qureishi acknowledges that the vast number of Muslims are peaceful, their being peaceful is because of many years of traditions that told them to despite what the Quran says. 

There is a problem here though. The Quran does have verses that tell Muslims to live at peace with others. One such verse tells Muslims to live at peace with one's neighbor if that neighbor desires to live at peace with them. In addition, we might also want to ask other Muslims about Qureishi's claims made in the above interview especially since Qureishi himself acknowledges that Muslims are a diverse group.

One of the key problems in listening to the Qureishi interview is his selective use of facts. Already mentioned was the failure to report the verses in the Quran that  preach peace. Another failure is in Qureishi's failure to give the full picture of Muhammad's use of violence. According to several sources, including material from investigative journalist Jason Burke, Mohammed's use of violence was in response to the injustices he witnessed at Mecca. Also visible at Mecca was the belief in many gods--polytheism held by many. From those observations, Mohammed associated the presence of injustices with polytheism. After those battles, Mohammed sought to install a utopia that would come about by people following the revelation he claimed he received from God.

Further, we should note Qureshi's comparisons between the bloodshed in the Old Testament and that of Islam, especially its earlier years. He makes the claim that the Quran orders Muslims to kill Christians for their beliefs while the people whom the Hebrews killed when claiming the Promised Land were receiving God's judgment for their sins. This is where Qureshi's exclusion of Mohammed's crusades against inequality and injustices at Mecca and other places when he was involved in prosecuting wars almost shows a dishonesty in Qureshi's comparison. On the one hand, he has no problems with what the Hebrews did because the then residents of the Promised Land were being killed for their actions. But unjust actions that Mohammed witnessed was precisely why he waged war first in Mecca, and then in the surround area and beyond and yet they are not mentioned in the comparison.

Qureshi's account of the Crusades also merits attention. For while Qureshi is quick to point out that the Quran promises eternal life for those whose jihad results in being killed in war, the Pope at the time of the First Crusade offered indulgences for sins in order to help raise an army to retake Jerusalem. In addition, the cruelty visited by the First Crusaders   on the residents of places like Jerusalem was horrendous.

And while Qureshi states that it took a thousand years for Christians to engage in religious wars whereas Muslims had been fighting almost immediately after Islam was found, there is a context for that. That context was the timing of the divisions in the Christian Church vs the divisions that occurred in Islam. When they did occur though, we had a long period of religious wars in Europe. But not mentioned by Qureshi is the fact that the Church relied on the violence of the state to help expand Christianity to other areas of the world. 

During the current time, we see many injustices forced on the people of the Orient. We see Israel's brutal occupation against the Palestinians, we see Middle East tyrants being supported by the West so long as these tyrants support the business interests of the West, we've seen coups and the supporting of terrorists. We should only note that Ronald Reagan supported both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. And yet, none of this is mentioned when comparing Islam to Christianity and the West.

The above is a very brief sampling of the inadequate and unreliable statements Qureshi makes about Islam. Should note here that I am speaking as a Christian Fundamentalist who adamantly disagrees with Islam's denial that Christ is the Son of God. But the gross inaccuracies made and selective use of historical facts  by Qureshi moves me to say that his description of Islam in the interview above contains too many inaccuracies for comfort.

But there is a problem greater than the content of Qureshi's comments. That greater problem is the fact that Christians are going only to fellow Christians not just for perspective and worldview, but for the facts on the ground. We can call this problem Christian insularity. We seek to learn about the world only from our own. And for as long as we do that, we will not only be unable to adequately evangelize others, we will lay stumbling block after stumbling block before the people we want to convert the most because we have misrepresented them when discussing history and current events. And all of these inaccuracies also serve to persuade Conservative Christians to support a war not just against terrorism practiced by extremists, but a war against another religion based on false statements.

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

April 22

To Russell Moore and his review of a book that explains why liberals always win culture wars. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

There are a couple of problems here. The first problem is the us vs them mentality in society. Conservatives vs Liberals. Those who know best vs the foolish. Good vs evil. How could conservatives who think this way possibly share society with nonconservative without seeking to control them? And how could conservatives who seek to control nonconservatives in society possibly understand democracy? Finally, what is the salvation status of Christians who have some political liberal or even leftist leanings?

Second, conservatives are not anti-utopian, they are post-utopian. In other words, all of the wisdom that is needed to live or experience the best life possible has been taught in past and followed in the good old days. It isn't that Conservatives who reject change and progressive ideas do so because they don't believe the utopian hype that often comes with these ideas. Rather, Conservatives believe that change has destroyed some mythical utopia that supposedly existed in the past.

As Moore has been warning people about the upcoming acceptance of same-sex marriage, I would like to suggest that the more we fight culture wars, the more we seek to unnecessarily control the lives of unbelievers in society. And the more we seek to control their lives, the less likely they will want to listen to the Gospel. So here is a suggestion, pursue culture coexistence rather than victory in the culture wars.

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

April 23

To Eric’s April 22 comment that responded to my claim that we had invaded Vietnam. He challenged that idea and this was part of the discussion on the Death by Government blogpost posted in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Eric,
You have the history backwards. Vietnam was actually divided to facilitate the expulsion of the Japanese after WW II. The French wanted take the opportunity to recolonize at least part of Vietnam. We had promised during WW II to help them do just that. When the French failed, we decided to prevent the reunification of Vietnam by first sending advisors to help sustain the dictatorship. in the South. The Geneva Accords attempted to address the division and the agreement made there was that the South would vote decide on reunification by voting on in. We ignored the Accords and maintained the dictatorship and that eventually became the Vietnam War, the war that included our invasion to prop up the dictators we favored and, in some cases, installed.

Now if you think I am revising history, we can discuss the subject by listing our supporting documentation.

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

To Eric and his April 22 comment that claim that the Left is responsible for all the murders committed by people like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. This was part of the discussion on the blogpost about death by government on the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Eric,
Whenever I read your accusations against the Left, I get the feeling that you are auditioning for something like, perhaps an Ann Coulter variety show, than trying to present a logical argument. .For it seems that you are more interested in being vehemently harsh than being precise. And your references to the Left indicate someone who is pretty much insular in their readings.

Certainly people like Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and others are guilty of murder, no argument there. But how are those Leftists who were murdered by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao responsible for their own deaths let alone the deaths of others? What about those Leftists who reject Lenin, Stalin, and Mao and who came after those three? They are responsible too?

Let me ask the same question in another way. Were all of America's founding fathers guilty of supporting slavery in our nation? And, a trickier question, were they all responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land?

Not too long ago, Bruce Frohnen wrote an article whose title far outpaced its content. The title was: 'Can Civility Be Restored To Our Campuses?' Frohnen went downhill from there by scapegoating the Left for the lack of civility on campuses. I say scapegoat because he never looked at what those particular Leftists were protesting as contributing to the problem. Now, do I feel some leftists contribute to the lack of civility on college campuses? Most certainly I do! But it has nothing to do with their Leftist ideology, it has everything to do the current trend, which Frohnen took part in, of externalizing evil and scapegoating the other side. After all, if the other side is evil, you must do all you can to silence them. And that is what Frohnen attempted to do in his article. And many from the Left, the Right, and Liberals have joined this trend.

We can't have civility anywhere for as long as groups externalize evil and scapegoat their opponents for the problems they see. For as long this is the trend, then each side will adopt the ends justifies the means ethic in trying to silence the other side. For Christians, it also means that we will start living out the prayer of the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying. In terms of how Martin Luther King Jr. described the West during the Vietnam War Vietnam, each side will be unjust to the other because each side will assume that it has everything to teach the other side and nothing to learn from them.

We can't be civil to each other when we can so easily demonize the other while putting ourselves on a pedestal.

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

April 25

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of John Calvin on the Regulative Principle for worship. The Regulative Principle states that the only ways by which we can worship are those that are commanded by God’s Word. Those ways of worship that have not been commanded are verboten and considered to be false worship.  This appeared in Heidelblog.

Personally, I think what has most hindered Reformed Theology is the regulative principle. All we have to do is to look at how it is stated here to see why. Note what is strongly associated, it is false worship and that which was not explicitly commanded from the beginning. 

Such not only causes us to start forcing Gentiles to live like Jews, as Peter was once accused of doing by Paul, and such not only forces us to approach worship as the Pharisees approached the law by paying attention to selected details and forgetting the spirit of what is involved, but it also denies both the implied change that Jesus spoke of when He said that a time will come when we will worship God in spirit and in truth and the changes necessitated by the death and Resurrection of Christ along with the Great Commission telling us to preach the Gospel throughout the world.

It is bad enough that this principle was applied to worship, but it often leaks out in other areas of life. When talking about fellow Reformed Christians about whether they should be involved in activism, the regulative principle is resorted to as people restrict their involvement to imitating specific NT examples or following explicit commands while ignoring biblical issues of justice or loving one's neighbor. It is as if the only practical theology we can learn is what we can imitate or what we are directly commanded to do.

This reliance on the regulative principle can, to some, make the New Testament as inflexible or irrelevant to life today as a literalist approach to The Constitution makes that document the same in answering today's new legal issues. In addition, we should note that no one consistently takes a literalist approach to The Constitution. Conservatives who claim to fail when they decontextualize the 2nd Amendment by removing the mention of the militia from the right to bear arms. Are those who follow the regulative principle far behind when they, as mentioned before, overlook the NT theology mentioned above?

There is a legitimate concern in using the regulative principle. That concern is that innovation can take us away from God's Word into self-worship. For innovation can separate us from the Apostolic faith that we lose essential connections with it. However, is forbidding all innovation, as the regulative principle does, the answer? Are there Biblical principles that can be used to guide our attempts to innovate?

On the one hand, because new issues and circumstances arise, theology must, at times, be new and fresh.  But that newness must never be allowed to separate us from or cause us to compromise the essentials of what has been revealed. For when it does, we've left the faith. But not allowing theology to be new condemns the essentials of our faith to irrelevance due to our inflexibility in applying the Gospel to today's new issues. And those who insist on prohibiting the new find themselves in homogeneous church groups that are unable to reach out to those who are different. The Regulative principle forces us into such groups as our rigidity in recognizing the issues people face in the world today blinds us to the new problems and concerns people experience today.

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

April 26

To Michael Severance and his blogpost that covers how Rev. Robert Sirico claimed that Christianity best protects the balance between the individual and the social. This appeared in the Acton blog.


The first question that comes to mind when reading about the interview with Rev. Robert Sirico is this: Which Christian view of anthropology provides the best blend of the individual and the social? Theologically conservative Christians lean toward one set of views on that balance while theologically liberal Christians lean toward another. To show the difference, we should note that theologically liberal Christianity leans more toward Socialism than than its conservative counterpart. In addition, without mentioning the details, Sirico's view of what Socialism says about people seems to be more the result of having used deduction than induction. We should also note that European Socialism is really a mix of a little socialism with some liberalism in the context of a global economy that is predominantly neoliberal.

Now if I was to take an inductive approach to Sirico's claims, I would have to say that theologically conservative Christianity does not best protect the balance between the individual and the social. Why? Because of its favoring of entrepreneurialism and business, it grants more individual rights and less social responsibility especially to those who are able to help the vulnerable to such an extent that it seems that there is an inverse correlation between having wealth and how much social responsibility one has. And if we examine the history of the Civil Rights Movement, we see that there seemed to be a greater reluctance on the part of theologically conservative Christian leaders and institutions to oppose racism than was seen in their theologically liberal counterparts.

From the article printed above, we see the great fault of theologically conservative Christians. That fault is the tendency to rely too heavily on deduction and/or to selectively use induction in answering questions like the one posed to Sirico For how does he answer the question, he speaks in general of the world views of Christianity and the Enlightenment while noting that Socialism is a product of the Enlightenment. In addition, he does not adequately use an inductive method to arrive at his conclusion and perhaps for good reason, historically speaking that is. For while he is content to compare the French and American Revolutions, he neglects to mention both the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land and America's horrendous treatment of Blacks both during slavery and afterwards. And many who participated in either ethnically cleansing Native Americans from the land or subjugating Blacks used Christian theology to defend their practices. He also neglects to refer to European colonialism that was practiced in the name of Christianity.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 7, 2015

Please note that there will be more writing errors in these comments that what would normally occur in this blog because less time is spent on editing the comments than on editing the blogposts.


Dec 31

To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost describing how a famous theologian was not nice. This appeared in Heidelblog.

If nice = 'to make someone comfortable,' then we must realize that there is a time to be nice and a time not to be nice. Turn, turn, turn.

But even when it is time not to be nice, we are always called to love, care about, and have compassion for all others. And these traits leave no room for pride, arrogance, a holier-than-thou attitude, and callousness.

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

Jan 2

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on Putin and whether he is a Orthodox Church Jihadist. This appeared in the Acton blog

I think other interpretations of the ties between Putin and the Orthodox Church should also be aired in order to facilitate a comparison and perhaps a better understanding of the situation.  One such interpretation, which can be applied here to a different degree, is that the Church serves as just another institution of indoctrination to maintain the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power. And if that is true, then Putin's verbal or governmental support for what the Orthodox Church wants to either hear or promote is, in actuality, nothing more than throwing a dog a bone. 

In any case, it would be instructive in understanding our own situation here if we note the effects of Russia's close tying of religion with nationalism. Religion will add certain self-righteous indignation at dissent while nationalism will forever be working to transform monotheistic religions into polytheistic ones where selected elites become the defacto Cardinals and Pope within the Church and self, both individual and collective, will be exalted as much as God is. Our nation's reverence for its founding fathers along with the relationship between Putin's government and the Orthodox Church has shown that this can take place in multiple countries and in ways. 

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how absolute comfort can corrupt us. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Just based on the second paragraph quoted above, distractions can be used not just by those who faced war, such as Odysseus' men, but on the general public as well. So the benefits enjoyed by residents of the empire, for an example, can lead them astray from paying attention to who has really had to pay for the costs of their amenities. Thus, not only soldiers, who were mentioned above, can be distracted and then corrupted by comfort.

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

Jan 3

To R. Scott Clark and his quoting Carl Trueman on the problems of calling celibate Christian homosexuals heroes. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Trueman definitely has a point when he talks about Christians imitating the hero worship of the world. But at the same time, it is quite difficult, if not impossible, for us heterosexuals, celibate or not, to understand the trials of Christian homosexuals simply because we are not homosexual and thus not enough of our experiences are shared. We don't belong to a group that is coming out of societal marginalization and celibate heterosexuals can actually have hope that they can be Biblically married. Christian homosexuals do not have that hope within their own orientation.

To understand what another person goes through, one must have enough similar or same experiences as that person. This is why us Christian heterosexuals cannot possibly understand  what celibate Christian homosexuals must endure. And we can admit that inability to understand without putting celibate Christian homosexuals on a pedestal. 

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

Jan 5

To Trip Lee and his blogpost on whether the Regulative Principle mandates conformity in how we worship. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

I think we should question the regulative principle because we see it applied outside of worship to all of life. This is what Biblical literalists do. But there is another besides the overextension of the principle. That issue is flexibility. Does the regulative principle allow for time and cultural contextual differences between Biblical times and now? In fact, we might even want to examine if NT worship outside of the Temple subscribed to the Regulative Principle.

In the end, we are faced with a one-and-many problem with regard to worship. In trying to react appropriately to the times and circumstances, do our different ways of worship contain the essential elements of the Christian faith and worship? And must one subscribe to the Regulative Principle to maintain the essential elements?

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

Jan 6


To Elise Hilton and her blogpost on the significance of ownership. This appeared in the Acton blog.

So solidarity with and the love of others pales in comparison to having things? Did you read what Martin Luther King said about a thing-oriented society in his speech against the Vietnam War? He said:

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

It isn't that being able to own things cannot be important. The issue is whether the is something better than being an owner of things.