Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 27, 2017

Sept 23

To Larry Eskridge and his blogpost review of Ken Burns’s documentary on the Vietnam War. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Healing the nation from a past trauma is one thing, but removing the scars that resulted from the trauma is another. And that is the question I see raised as I read reviews of Ken Burns's documentary on the Vietnam War.

When it comes to war, the term 'noble sacrifice' is sometimes nothing more than a marketing tool. It is created so that making such sacrifices in the future continues. It was created so that people of noble intent believe that intent alone is necessary to fight for one's country. The use of that term excuses us from being responsible for following the orders of those who tell us to go to war.

Burns, according to a Newsweek article, does tell us about the decision to be involved in Vietnam. It was made in 1945 when we decided to help the French recolonize Vietnam after the war. Vietnam itself was divided in order to facilitate the expulsion of the Japanese. After the French failed, the Geneva Accords called for elections to decide on whether to reunite the divided country. What was decided in Geneva was rejected by the then current ruler of South Vietnam and the United States. BTW, that ruler, who the last emperor from the Vietnam ruling family, was replaced by the US in rigged elections with a dictator. And along with the emergence of the domino theory and our nation's bipolar political approach to the world, our fate in Vietnam was sealed.

Yes Burns shows multiple sides of the war but so does  BBC documentary on the European theater of WW II called The Nazis: A Warning From History. Will Burns's documentary on Vietnam focus more on warning us in order to prevent other Vietnams or will it attempt to help us understand multiple sides of the war to heal any existing divisions and thus remove an old scar?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 26

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on Romans 13 and obeying the civil authorities. This appeared in Heidelblog.

While I fully agree that my fellow social justice people who want to abolish the police are totally wrong, the last paragraph is meant to  rationalize the American Revolution because it is being done by a group Clark identifies with. For if we are going to judge theonomists and those social justice workers who want to abolish the police  as well as all others by Romans 13, why are we resorting to Calvin to judge those who who perpetrated the American Revolution? It isn't that we shouldn't consult Calvin here, it is that we should use the same standard to judge all. In addition, the Continental Congress was an authority that was under British rule. So using Calvin to justify the American is like saying a local government can rebel against a higher government if that higher government is run by tyrants. Such would, in the minds of some, also justify the attempts at secession by the Confederate states. And it isn't that we shouldn't resist tyrants; it is that we should use the same standards to judge all.

What we should note is the different contexts that exist between now and the time of the Apostles. Such does not justify going a totally different path than what they taught, but those changes in context do have an effect on how we carry out and implement what Paul says in Romans 13 as well as what Peter wrote.

We should that  there are 2 significant changes between then and now. Whereas in Peter's and Paul's day, governments were run by dictators, today, we have democracies. Why that  is significant is because while dictators give commands and their subjects obeyed or are punished, democracies command that people participate and participate in ways in addition to voting. This makes the people more responsible for the actions of their government.  In addition, whereas in Peter's and Paul's day, the Gospel was not associated with the policies of any government because the Gospel was new and limited in the number of people it reached; the same cannot be said today. And we should note that one of the concerns of the Apostles in their command to obey the authorities was the reputation of the Gospel and how that was affected by the behavior of Christians.

And yet we have one more variable to factor in here. How much of the behavior of the OT prophets should carry over to how we respond to governments, especially unjust ones? The OT prophets were not shy pointing out the sins of the state and its leaders and challenging them to repent. That kind of behavior was also exemplified by John The Baptist as he challenged Herod.

We should note that Calvin was not the only one in Church history to write about unjust rulers. Augustine did as well. And he compared a kingdom without justice to a gang of thieves. And so if we now return to Romans 13, which weighed on Martin Luther King's mind as he thought about how to respond to unjust laws and rulers, we have some real thinking to do. King's solution was this, he agreed with Augustine who also said that unjust laws are not real laws. And so King concluded that we must resist unjust laws. But in order to follow Romans 13 and to deny anarchy a place at the table, he stated that when it is necessary for justice's sake to refuse to submit to unjust laws, then those who disobey must accept the consequences laid out by those unjust leaders. According to King, such an approach showed more respect for the authorities God had put into power than to blindly follow and/or enforce unjust laws. BTW, just as some who work for social justice believe in abolishing the police, others follow King's teaching here. Some of King's approach was practiced by Christians in Acts who were commanded not to preach the Gospel. So why shouldn't that approach also be practiced to challenge unjust laws?

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost, accompanied by video, claim that Capitalism reduces poverty. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The video endorsing capitalism glosses over so many details that it becomes extremely disingenuous. We should note that we are employing a different form of Capitalism today than what was employed immediately after WW II. That form, which was called the Bretton-Woods system, oversaw the greatest egalitarian growth in America. But the global reduction in poverty didn't start, according to the video, until 1970. Here we should note that it was in the 1970s that today's form of Capitalism, which is called Neoliberalism, began to be employed. And one of the first nations in which it was used was Chilé. But that could only occur after a military coup overthrew a democratically elected government and produced a military tyrant as the nation's ruler.

So before the 1970s, we had Capitalism that was not dominated by globalism. Rather, governments had more control over their nation's economic resources and such was an advantage for the people whose governments functioned as working democracies. But as globalism became dominant through neoliberalism, so was the offshoring of jobs where the protections workers enjoyed here were not experienced by workers in the destination nations. Rather, workers were exploited. So some were paid more because they had no jobs in the first place,  the hours and working conditions alone show a gross absence of concern for the workers' welfare and rights. And the poverty statistics measure neither these other factors for people who were now employed nor the losses suffered by those who lost their jobs. Here we should note that companies often moved factories to places where they were least burdened by regulations that protected workers and the environment.

We should also note that free markets themselves revolve around the needs of those with wealth than with the remaining stakeholders of neoliberal capitalism. Here we should note that the traditional definition of stakeholder consists of all who are impacted by activities of a given business. Thus residents of communities in which businesses were located, vendors, customers, and workers were included as stakeholders of a business. Today, stakeholders are equated with major stockholders. And a maximize profit ethic, which cannibalizes all other ethical and moral concerns, has caused companies to offshore jobs in order to maximize ROI for shareholders regardless of how it has hurt both workers and the communities they lived in.

We should also note that the bar for what is considered poverty is rather low according to the video. More people, according to the video, are living on more than a dollar a day--and that is consistent with offshoring jobs and paying poverty wages to those who may not have had wages at all. But enabling people to live on more than a dollar a day does not mean that fewer people live in poverty. Yes, poverty has been reduced in most areas of the world. But how much and at what price?

What we should note is that with the current form of capitalism being employed today, the Gini coefficients, when using an absolute, not relative, measures indicate that wealth disparity is increasing both within many capitalist nations, including the U.S., and between nations. And since power follows money, we should note that it isn't just wealth that is being consolidated under today's neoliberal capitalism, it is political power. And perhaps that is one reason why the U.S. is now classified as an oligarchy by some, rather than a democracy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ). Let alone we should note the state of the world's environment, especially as it pertains to the climate since neoliberal capitalism has affected the climate.

And we should also note that not all nations that have seen a reduction in poverty employ capitalist economies. Though there are elements of capitalism in China's system, it can hardly be called a Capitalist economy.
This comment features just a sample of problems with the video that claims that Capitalism reduces poverty. Certainly not all experience it that way and some of those who do, pay a high price in other areas.

Should We Belong To An Evil Empire

I don't know if Kurt Willems is well known perhaps because we come from two different theological traditions. While I come from a Reformed Theological tradition and Willems comes from an Anabaptist one. The two were at odds during the Reformation but "tolerate" each other today. Nevertheless, he has important challenges for those of us who were raised on Romans 13 and a Christian based patriotism. In his sermon on Revelation 17, Willems implores us to first see the connection between America's  empire with the great whore from Revelation 17 and then to react by coming out from this prostitute so as to escape her coming judgment.

Regardless of whether Willems' association of America and the Empire with which this woman from Revelation 17 is biblically correct, that by building an empire, America has much in common with the past empires. And in our case, one of those similarities include how the union of civil religion with nationalism led to the massive shedding of blood and the grand theft of land and resources.

According to Willems, the Christian response to America's empire should be to separate oneself from participating in the creation and maintenance of empire less we become like those who eat meat sacrificed to idols by freely enjoying the fruits of the American empire which are the results of exploitation or the worship of idols, that is becoming united with the great whore from Revelation 17, by how we pay homage to the state. Willems' view here challenges Christians from the Reformed tradition in two ways. First, whereas Willems sees that America is founded on sins of violence and domination, many from the Reformed tradition see America as being founded on the Word of God. This does not imply to the latter group that all has been kosher. Rather, they are just saying that the foundation of America were based on the Bible and that the Bible played a key role in its development despite the sins.

Of course another challenge to Reformed Christians which Willems presents is his depiction of the character of America's empire regards the inferences Reformed Christians have drawn from Romans 13 and I Peter 2. In these scriptures, both Paul and Peter command us to submit to the authorities because all who are in authority have been ordained by God. From their teachings on submission comes an unfortunate patriotism and even reverence for one's nation which has sometimes achieved a quasi-religious significance. For many Reformed Christians, patriotism ranks at least third behind cleanliness and godliness.

But Willems presents still another challenge to the Reformed view of Romans 13. Whereas those from the Reformed Tradition look at Romans 13 as addressing personal piety, Willems directs our attention from making sure we dot every 'i' and cross every 't  to thinking about doing our small part to address the needs of those who suffer because of America's empire. And it is at this point where we see how we from the Reformed Faith define piety differently from how Willems does. Whereas those from the Reformed Traditions measure piety by what rules one follows, Willems is thinking of piety by how our actions affect others and what we can do for them. In other words, it seems that piety according to the Reformed Traditions is inner or self-directed while Willems' is outer or other directed.

Something else can be observed here. With the Reformed Traditions, there is a strict division of labor, a modularization if you are a Computer Scientist or rigidity if you are a Psychologist, where social justice is the sole concern of the government while our responsibility is to keep ourselves pure. With Willems, social justice is a concern of both the government and the individual. So that when the government fails to practice and promote social justice,  the individual is to pick up the slack and that is for the sake of the victims of injustice.

As much as I believe and value the theologies of the Godhead and soteriology (study of salvation) that come from the Reformed Traditions, what Willems says here is a breath of fresh air. That piety and our relationship with God is not just about our own worship of God, our personal purity, and our relationships with those who live in the small circle of our lives; it includes a broader and less rigid view of how we relate to the world. So that if because of the system in which we live we hurt others by what we enjoy, then it is our God given duty to resist the system by at least breaking with conventions.

The above is not an easy message to hear by some Reformed Christians for a few reasons. First it goes against the narrative some have heard their whole lives. Second, those who idolatrously revel in patriotism gain more than a fair amount of self-signficiance through their association with this country and its history. And third, some are not ready for the personal changes that are implied by admitting such a narrative.  For such changes required, especially of those who would call themselves Christians, would revolve around being more concerned about the injustice visited on others than their own personal religiosity. This showing concern for the victims of injustice can incur the high price of being at odds with those close to us as well as the prevailing view of the society in which we live.

Very few have really struck an adequate balance between the implications of the injustices practiced by one's own nation and the Biblical commands to recognize the source of the authority of those who are our elected leaders. Both Gandhi and Martin Luther King provided fallible examples of providing such a balance. And if we attempt to continue what they started, perhaps we can make the Christian faith more relevant for today without sacrificing the Gospel's message.

A New Year's Resolution For the American Conservative Christian

The following is an effortless attempt to use alliterations to illustrate the biggest flaw I see in my fellow American Conservative Christians. When it comes to authority and authority figures, Conservative Christians prefer to cowardly cower rather than to be courageously combative.

What do I mean here? What I mean is that American Conservative Christians refuse to stand up to those with authority when they abuse others. Such Christians neither resist nor encourage others to do so. Why? It is because they cop out of their Gospel given responsibility to confront sin.

Of course these Christians have an excuse or an apologetic. Romans 13, such Christians say, tells us obey all who are in authority. So though some might wish to do otherwise, they are bound by the Scriptures to uncritically do what authority figures command. Of course there is a caveat in this command to submit to all in authority. Here, we are allowed disobey the authorities if they forbid us from preaching the Gospel or if they command us to do something immoral. However, if the authorities are treating others unjustly, according to American Christian Conservatives, we are not to say a word to the authorities while we are to tell the oppressed to take a lap and suck it up.

What could be more cowardly than to be silent in the face of evil? And indeed, Christians are told to preach against being evil. But Conservative Christians are told to do that only if the evil being confronted is a personal sin, like sex outside of a heterogeneous, monogamous marriage. According to  Conservative Christians, when the authorities pillage, rob, and kill, we are to be good little boys and girls and look the other way. And if we do that, the authorities will leave us alone and we get to keep of our possessions that we hold so dear. It is here we see the real reason why Conservative Christians submit to unrighteous authorities; it is for selfishness rather than selflessness.

Of course, only Conservative Christians are blind to their own cowardice and lack of love here. Such practices show both an utter failure to represent the Gospel and a fearful desire of failing the god of mammon. And as they distort the infinitely rich Gospel they claim to serve, they cause those outside of their small circle to view that Gospel with scorn as is described in Romans 2:23-24.

So there can only be one resolution American Conservative Christians should make for this New Year's. That resolution is to grow some faith in order to muster the courage it takes to confront the evil practiced by those in authority. Of course courage is needed because those in authority, whether they be from the private or public sector, can seek revenge.

Now since Conservative Christians have been spending all of their time obeying authorities, how would they know how to act on any newfound courage to resist authorities who practice evil? After all, even if they did not use parts of the Bible like Romans 13 as a shield for their selfishness and faintheartedness when it comes to failing to preach repentance to those with authority, Romans 13 does install limits on how we are to regard those in authority who practice evil.

So how should the Conservative Christian be faithful to both biblical duties of challenging abusive authorities to repent while respecting their source of authority? Martin Luther King faced this question when determining what would be the Biblical response to the unjust discrimination laws in the South during his time. His solution was that certain laws had to be broken either because they were unjust or in order to draw attention to other unjust laws. And when those in authority came to enforce those laws, King directed those with him to peacefully submit to arrest and the legal penalties. When King referred to "peacefully submitting," he was telling those with him to void themselves of both external and internal violence. Internal violence referred to attitudes that desired to lash out at those making arrests. To King, such resistance showed more respect for the law and those in authority than not showing any resistance because one was to obey the authorities.

And it isn't that Christians needed to wait until Martin Luther King formulated this response to know what to do, we see Biblical heros confronting evil rulers from Moses vs Pharaoh all of the way to John the Baptist vs Herod and beyond. In the Bible, God's spokespeople constantly preach against ALL who practiced evil. And since they did, it is time for those who claim to follow the Bible more literally than all others to do the same.