If the Russian Revolution tells us anything, it tells us that to get real change, we must do more than just change the places of the first and last place teams, we must change the game. When the Russian Revolution succeeded in overthrowing the Tsars in the February, 1917 Revolution and then in overthrowing the provisional government in October of the same year, tyrannical rule was kept only it was practice by a new group.
Thus, both revolutions failed. Why? It was because the revolutionaries sought their own power. The provisional government replaced the Tsars in the February Revoution. And though they didn't rule with the iron hand, they didn't share power.
More often than not, when revolutionaries seek to replace the current leaders by force, they are not seeking to change the game by which government operates, they only seek to take the place of those who were ruling and they are willing to use the same methods and force to maintain their power as it took to put them in power. Thus, the game never changed except for the identity of the first and last place teams did.
While talking with one high school student at church, I recommended that he watch the PBS special on the Freedom Riders (click here). Like those participating in the Russian Revolution, the Freedom Riders sought to change the great injustices they saw. But they did things differently than Russians did. The Freedom Riders abstained from violence; they abstained from both external and internal violence. And the Freedom Riders enjoyed more and longer lasting success than those participating in the Russian Revolution.
This should teach us something. Those who use physical or verbal violence to get their way are not seeking to change things for our benefit, they are only seeking power. And that is why we have no real chance to change things today. That is because over 98% of what we see in the public square is a continual sparring between representatives of different ideological and political groups. We are seeing a continual sparring between groups that are seeking their own interests.
So we have a choice. We can either join in or we can follow the examples those who who nonviolently participated in the Civil Rights Movement. To follow the former group is to guarantee the status quo only with new faces. To follow the latter group gives us our only chance to change from our current journey to self-destruction.
www.flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com
(Only one person pictured is a Christian Fundamentalist. And so which one pictured is not like the others)
Showing posts with label Russian Revolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russian Revolution. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 11, 2017
Sept 29
To C. Daniel Motley and his blogpost that expresses concern about a new sexual revolution that demands polyamory. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website
I don't see any significant signs of a new sexual revolution emphasizing polyamory. If it does occur, it isn't because of the Obergefell decision. When one compares monogamous same-sex marriage to monogamous heterosexual marriage and polyamory, it is easy to see that monogamous same-sex marriage has far more in common with monogamous heterosexual marriage than with polyamory.
Perhaps we should look at the attitudes millennials have to sex and marriage to gain some insight into any future call for polyamory. From what I have seen, millennials have a more open view toward multiple sexual partners. But the why is the most important part here. The open view to multiple partners is done out of a search to be/feel more connected. And perhaps it is understanding that search that provides the best hedge against polyamory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 5
To Bob Lepine and his blogpost that tries to make sense of the mass shooting in Las Vegas. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.
One thing we might want to remember here. That when we see violent behavior in society, that that the people who produce such behavior are as much a product of society than anyone else. To believe otherwise in a society where people are increasingly objectified as machines that either help us get what we want or become disposable. is to entertain delusions of righteous grandeur.
What I am saying goes beyond guns, which need to be revamped so as to reduce the probability of similar attacks in the future. Because of the values promoted the most in society, perhaps we should expect more of such calloused actions as what we saw in Las Vegas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 8
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost of an interview in which he sees people’s interest in the social gospel and concern over social justice as leading people astray from the Gospel. This applied in Heidelblog
There are 3 major problems with the approach taken by R. Scott Clark to the social gospel and social justice. They consist of an imitation problem, a strawman problem, and the exception of racism.
Clark's imitation problem has everything to do with how he applies the New Testament to the the social gospel and social justice. For Clark seems to teach that the only things we can learn about the social gospel and social justice from the New Testament is that which can be imitated from the Apostles. If they didn't address social justice or challenge the government when it did wrong, then neither can we. And the basis for Clark's teaching here assumes that there are no significant contextual differences between the Church today and the Church during the time of the Apostles. That Christians are not facing any change of status regarding the Gospel in the world and that the social and political structures are not significantly different during the time of the Apostles.
Such seems to overlook that during the time of the Apostles, the Gospel was unknown to the rest of the world and so the major concern of the Apostles was to spread the Gospel. And part of spreading the Gospel was to ensure that its reputation, through the actions of believers, remained as spotless as possible. The same cannot be said today. The Gospel is known throughout the world. But not only that, because of the actions of government leaders who have and still claim to rule in the name of Christ, both good and bad associations have been made with the Gospel. And those bad associations must be addressed by the Church if it is to preach the Gospel with as much legitimate credibility as possible.
Thus, we should note that for Clark all that can be gleaned from the times of the Apostles is that even when rulers are wicked, we are to submit to the governming authorities and we are to focus on our personal sanctification. And according to the examples set by the Apostles, there is no room for activism or challenging those in authority. Rather, we are to change society but focusing solely on the changing the lives of individuals with the preaching of the Gospel.
To Clark's approach, the problem of Christian involvement in politics presents a significant challenge. For there were no Christians who served in the local or regional governments of the Roman Empire during the times of the Apostles and neither was there such a thing called Democracy where citizens are called to participate in various levels of self-governance. In addition, we might ask Clark how the Apostles would have directed us on how to vote on issues like same-sex marriage in society or a specific war.
The 2nd problem with Clark's approach concerns his strawman approach to the social gospel. It's a strawman approach because he portrays the social gospel and social justice as monoliths that could be defined by the works of an individual such as Walter Rauschenbusch, in the case of the social gospel, and Karl Marx, in the case of social justice. Thus for Clark, the social gospel always involves the elimination of the actual Gospel and social justice is defined solely by the pagan influence of Karl Marx who promoted the idea of a utopia. Thus, according the Clark, the definitions of the social gospel and social justice are unchangeable.
Because the social gospel can only mean what Rauschenbush defined it to be and the same applies to social justice and Karl Marx, the development of thought in both subjects and the various approaches taken by others who followed them are ignored. In addition what seems to follow Clark's thinking here is that no new version of the social gospel or social justice can be developed by Christians who while borrowing from Rauschenbush and Marx, do not compromise on the Gospel.
Of course, in order for Clark to maintain his positions on the social gospel and social justice, he has to account for the work of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement. This is his third problem because he doesn't really present a full picture of what King practiced and promoted. For there were no early Christian examples that were imitated by King when he worked against racism. Clark doesn't mention that King employed activism, civil disobedience, and calls for structural changes in society knowing that such changes could change some hearts while providing legal protection for Blacks from those who hearts would not change. Thus, much of King's approach provides a counterexample to what Clark is calling for.
But Clark sweeps King's methods under the carpet of the sin of racism, which King was working against. Thus, what King did was acceptable because, according to Clark, he was calling us Christians to repent from racism, a way of viewing and treating people that is totally against the Scriptures. But what follows Clark's treatment of King is that racism is the only societal and individual sin that vindicates King. However, the way Clark tells the story, King seemed to be only calling the Church to repent.
While Clark is rightly concerned with maintaining a faithfulness to preach the Gospel while interacting with society, what he misses is this. Everything that the Church does and does not do becomes associated with the Gospel. Thus, regardless of whether the Church speaks out on social justice issues or follows some form of the social gospel, it becomes associated with the Gospel. That means that the Church's silence on social justice issues impacts the reputation of the Gospel. And that reputation, as seen by many non-Christians, is that while the Church excels at beating people up over indivudal sins, especially sexual sins, societal and state sins, including those sins that benefit the wealthy, are passed over. This seems to violate what James 2 talks about when he condemned favoritism. In addition, while the Church neglects to preach against societal and state sins, it passively aligns itself with wealth and power. And we should note that the Church had aligned itself with wealth and power in the pre-revolutionary times of the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions with disastrous for both the Church and the reputation of the Gospel.
We should note that while Clark rightly sees racism as something that must be spoken against by the Church, it isn't just because of how members of the Church should repent of the sin. In addition, many of the unjust actions pointed to by those promoting the social gospel and those working for social justice revolve around the commandments prohibiting murder and theft. For example, exploiting workers by underpaying them is a form of theft. In fact, one could say that such is a kind of the sin James condemns in James 5:1ff. And when the economic conditions caused by paying employees poverty wages causes early deaths in those employees or their dependents, then those promoting such conditions could also be charged with murder according to the Scriptures.
We should note that King also worked and crusaded against economic exploitation and poverty. In addition, he spoke against the Vietnam War as well. If King was correct in opposing racism, was he wrong in opposing that war? After all, he saw racism, war/militarism, and materialism/economic exploitation as being inextricably linked.
What Clark seems to miss in his approach to the social gospel and social justice is an awareness of an insularity he is promoting for the Church. For Clark, King was right to oppose racism because it was practiced in the Church. But the Church is not only to preach against the sins committed by Church members, it is to speak prophetically to society if it is to follow the examples of the OT prophets, and it is to do good. And while doing all of that, it needs to recognize the the differences in its responsibility to society and the Church. And that fulfilling its responsibility to society, the Church is making positive associations with the Gospel that enhances its opportunities to preach the Gospel. And all of that can be done without compromising the Gospel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 9
To Walter McDougall and his blogpost on what was real conservatism during a time when America’s founding has become wholly corrupted both domestically and in foreign affairs. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
With America being poisoned by the source of energy of its economic system, which is greed, it is quite normal to ponder over the good old days along with the corollary of searching for its vanguards. But such pondering and searching amounts to nothing more than another waiting for Godot.
When was the good old days for America? That depends on with whom one is speaking. Certainly there are times when at least some Whites saw sunny weather and clear skies. But It is difficult to say whether such good old days were ever just overcast for Blacks while the plight of Native Americans has never even seen overcast conditions.
And if, in our nation's history, Native Americans and Blacks had never seen real good weather, where are the real conservatives of which the article above speaks?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost that rightly criticizes the Russian Revolution. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
If we read Rosa Luxemburg's criticisms of the government Lenin formed, maybe we would not be so quick to attribute the aftermath of the Russian Revolution to Socialism, or at least all Socialists. The October Revolution was hijacked from the beginning and so it is difficult to say whether it started good and ended bad or whether it was bad from the beginning. Certainly, the conditions that spurred the need for revolution were significantly objectionable to the people. And we should note that those conditions were caused by an economic system that was a hybrid of a peasant economy with capitalism. And the capitalists' support of the war only made living conditions worse.
Who knows how socialism would have turned out to be if the Mensheviks didn't walkout of the 2nd All Russian Congress of the Soviet? But because they did, Bolshevism became a form of Communism, which is Socialism to some, that produced nothing more than just another form of a Tsarist dictatorship. That is what Luxemburg rightly called a bourgeois dictatorship.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10
To Dylan Pahman and his blogpost on why Christopher Columbus gets too much blame for atrocities that occurred in the parts of the New World he “discovered.” This appeared in the Acton Blog.
Sorry, but it matters little whether one groups the settlers referred to with Columbus or not, their deeds as a whole are utterly reprehensible and enabled by Columbus's journey and his own leadership and conduct. If we include all that was written above with the history of how America was colonized, it indicts Western Civilization far too many to count atrocities conducted against non-whites. Thus, it is a great mystery as to why we should care about preserving Western culture Western Civilization's legacy.
And yes, since the mention of Columbus did not include all of his ventures in the New World, he did serve as a reprehensible person.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how the DOJ’s latest memo affirms our religious rights and liberty. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Besides the fact that some of these principles were already in play, we should note the reason for the DOJ's memo: it is to enable and protect religiously conservative Christians when, in their business ventures, they discriminate against the LGBT community. That keeps that part of the base in line despite Trump's failures both in judgment and morals.
Allowing religiously conservative Christians to discriminate against the LGBT community in society doesn't show a commitment to rights, it exhibits a devotion to reestablishing privilege for these same Christians. For liberty deal with equality, privilege is used to marginalize others. Liberty - equality equals privilege, not rights. And nothing says that some religiously conservative Christians are seeking privilege more than their past opposition to same-sex marriage in society. It biblically right for them to prohibit same-sex marriage in churches that believe that the Bible is God's Word. I stand with them on that. But society is made up of a diverse group of people of which some are religiously conservative Christians. And when religiously conservative Christians opposed same-sex marriage, they were trampling over the religious rights of those whose religious beliefs accommodate or support same-sex marriage. And, in fact, some of the objections to the legalization of same-sex marriage included the fear that it would infringe on the religious rights of these same religiously conservative Christians. Those rights revolved around the freedom to marginalize, to various degrees, the LGBT community in society. And, as was said before, the DOJ memo helps keep these same religiously conservative Christians in the fold of those who support the President.
So the DOJ memo is not primarily concerned with rights as it is with poll numbers and the future votes of those who want to marginalize the LGBT community in society.
To C. Daniel Motley and his blogpost that expresses concern about a new sexual revolution that demands polyamory. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website
I don't see any significant signs of a new sexual revolution emphasizing polyamory. If it does occur, it isn't because of the Obergefell decision. When one compares monogamous same-sex marriage to monogamous heterosexual marriage and polyamory, it is easy to see that monogamous same-sex marriage has far more in common with monogamous heterosexual marriage than with polyamory.
Perhaps we should look at the attitudes millennials have to sex and marriage to gain some insight into any future call for polyamory. From what I have seen, millennials have a more open view toward multiple sexual partners. But the why is the most important part here. The open view to multiple partners is done out of a search to be/feel more connected. And perhaps it is understanding that search that provides the best hedge against polyamory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 5
To Bob Lepine and his blogpost that tries to make sense of the mass shooting in Las Vegas. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.
One thing we might want to remember here. That when we see violent behavior in society, that that the people who produce such behavior are as much a product of society than anyone else. To believe otherwise in a society where people are increasingly objectified as machines that either help us get what we want or become disposable. is to entertain delusions of righteous grandeur.
What I am saying goes beyond guns, which need to be revamped so as to reduce the probability of similar attacks in the future. Because of the values promoted the most in society, perhaps we should expect more of such calloused actions as what we saw in Las Vegas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 8
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost of an interview in which he sees people’s interest in the social gospel and concern over social justice as leading people astray from the Gospel. This applied in Heidelblog
There are 3 major problems with the approach taken by R. Scott Clark to the social gospel and social justice. They consist of an imitation problem, a strawman problem, and the exception of racism.
Clark's imitation problem has everything to do with how he applies the New Testament to the the social gospel and social justice. For Clark seems to teach that the only things we can learn about the social gospel and social justice from the New Testament is that which can be imitated from the Apostles. If they didn't address social justice or challenge the government when it did wrong, then neither can we. And the basis for Clark's teaching here assumes that there are no significant contextual differences between the Church today and the Church during the time of the Apostles. That Christians are not facing any change of status regarding the Gospel in the world and that the social and political structures are not significantly different during the time of the Apostles.
Such seems to overlook that during the time of the Apostles, the Gospel was unknown to the rest of the world and so the major concern of the Apostles was to spread the Gospel. And part of spreading the Gospel was to ensure that its reputation, through the actions of believers, remained as spotless as possible. The same cannot be said today. The Gospel is known throughout the world. But not only that, because of the actions of government leaders who have and still claim to rule in the name of Christ, both good and bad associations have been made with the Gospel. And those bad associations must be addressed by the Church if it is to preach the Gospel with as much legitimate credibility as possible.
Thus, we should note that for Clark all that can be gleaned from the times of the Apostles is that even when rulers are wicked, we are to submit to the governming authorities and we are to focus on our personal sanctification. And according to the examples set by the Apostles, there is no room for activism or challenging those in authority. Rather, we are to change society but focusing solely on the changing the lives of individuals with the preaching of the Gospel.
To Clark's approach, the problem of Christian involvement in politics presents a significant challenge. For there were no Christians who served in the local or regional governments of the Roman Empire during the times of the Apostles and neither was there such a thing called Democracy where citizens are called to participate in various levels of self-governance. In addition, we might ask Clark how the Apostles would have directed us on how to vote on issues like same-sex marriage in society or a specific war.
The 2nd problem with Clark's approach concerns his strawman approach to the social gospel. It's a strawman approach because he portrays the social gospel and social justice as monoliths that could be defined by the works of an individual such as Walter Rauschenbusch, in the case of the social gospel, and Karl Marx, in the case of social justice. Thus for Clark, the social gospel always involves the elimination of the actual Gospel and social justice is defined solely by the pagan influence of Karl Marx who promoted the idea of a utopia. Thus, according the Clark, the definitions of the social gospel and social justice are unchangeable.
Because the social gospel can only mean what Rauschenbush defined it to be and the same applies to social justice and Karl Marx, the development of thought in both subjects and the various approaches taken by others who followed them are ignored. In addition what seems to follow Clark's thinking here is that no new version of the social gospel or social justice can be developed by Christians who while borrowing from Rauschenbush and Marx, do not compromise on the Gospel.
Of course, in order for Clark to maintain his positions on the social gospel and social justice, he has to account for the work of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement. This is his third problem because he doesn't really present a full picture of what King practiced and promoted. For there were no early Christian examples that were imitated by King when he worked against racism. Clark doesn't mention that King employed activism, civil disobedience, and calls for structural changes in society knowing that such changes could change some hearts while providing legal protection for Blacks from those who hearts would not change. Thus, much of King's approach provides a counterexample to what Clark is calling for.
But Clark sweeps King's methods under the carpet of the sin of racism, which King was working against. Thus, what King did was acceptable because, according to Clark, he was calling us Christians to repent from racism, a way of viewing and treating people that is totally against the Scriptures. But what follows Clark's treatment of King is that racism is the only societal and individual sin that vindicates King. However, the way Clark tells the story, King seemed to be only calling the Church to repent.
While Clark is rightly concerned with maintaining a faithfulness to preach the Gospel while interacting with society, what he misses is this. Everything that the Church does and does not do becomes associated with the Gospel. Thus, regardless of whether the Church speaks out on social justice issues or follows some form of the social gospel, it becomes associated with the Gospel. That means that the Church's silence on social justice issues impacts the reputation of the Gospel. And that reputation, as seen by many non-Christians, is that while the Church excels at beating people up over indivudal sins, especially sexual sins, societal and state sins, including those sins that benefit the wealthy, are passed over. This seems to violate what James 2 talks about when he condemned favoritism. In addition, while the Church neglects to preach against societal and state sins, it passively aligns itself with wealth and power. And we should note that the Church had aligned itself with wealth and power in the pre-revolutionary times of the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions with disastrous for both the Church and the reputation of the Gospel.
We should note that while Clark rightly sees racism as something that must be spoken against by the Church, it isn't just because of how members of the Church should repent of the sin. In addition, many of the unjust actions pointed to by those promoting the social gospel and those working for social justice revolve around the commandments prohibiting murder and theft. For example, exploiting workers by underpaying them is a form of theft. In fact, one could say that such is a kind of the sin James condemns in James 5:1ff. And when the economic conditions caused by paying employees poverty wages causes early deaths in those employees or their dependents, then those promoting such conditions could also be charged with murder according to the Scriptures.
We should note that King also worked and crusaded against economic exploitation and poverty. In addition, he spoke against the Vietnam War as well. If King was correct in opposing racism, was he wrong in opposing that war? After all, he saw racism, war/militarism, and materialism/economic exploitation as being inextricably linked.
What Clark seems to miss in his approach to the social gospel and social justice is an awareness of an insularity he is promoting for the Church. For Clark, King was right to oppose racism because it was practiced in the Church. But the Church is not only to preach against the sins committed by Church members, it is to speak prophetically to society if it is to follow the examples of the OT prophets, and it is to do good. And while doing all of that, it needs to recognize the the differences in its responsibility to society and the Church. And that fulfilling its responsibility to society, the Church is making positive associations with the Gospel that enhances its opportunities to preach the Gospel. And all of that can be done without compromising the Gospel.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 9
To Walter McDougall and his blogpost on what was real conservatism during a time when America’s founding has become wholly corrupted both domestically and in foreign affairs. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
With America being poisoned by the source of energy of its economic system, which is greed, it is quite normal to ponder over the good old days along with the corollary of searching for its vanguards. But such pondering and searching amounts to nothing more than another waiting for Godot.
When was the good old days for America? That depends on with whom one is speaking. Certainly there are times when at least some Whites saw sunny weather and clear skies. But It is difficult to say whether such good old days were ever just overcast for Blacks while the plight of Native Americans has never even seen overcast conditions.
And if, in our nation's history, Native Americans and Blacks had never seen real good weather, where are the real conservatives of which the article above speaks?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost that rightly criticizes the Russian Revolution. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
If we read Rosa Luxemburg's criticisms of the government Lenin formed, maybe we would not be so quick to attribute the aftermath of the Russian Revolution to Socialism, or at least all Socialists. The October Revolution was hijacked from the beginning and so it is difficult to say whether it started good and ended bad or whether it was bad from the beginning. Certainly, the conditions that spurred the need for revolution were significantly objectionable to the people. And we should note that those conditions were caused by an economic system that was a hybrid of a peasant economy with capitalism. And the capitalists' support of the war only made living conditions worse.
Who knows how socialism would have turned out to be if the Mensheviks didn't walkout of the 2nd All Russian Congress of the Soviet? But because they did, Bolshevism became a form of Communism, which is Socialism to some, that produced nothing more than just another form of a Tsarist dictatorship. That is what Luxemburg rightly called a bourgeois dictatorship.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 10
To Dylan Pahman and his blogpost on why Christopher Columbus gets too much blame for atrocities that occurred in the parts of the New World he “discovered.” This appeared in the Acton Blog.
Sorry, but it matters little whether one groups the settlers referred to with Columbus or not, their deeds as a whole are utterly reprehensible and enabled by Columbus's journey and his own leadership and conduct. If we include all that was written above with the history of how America was colonized, it indicts Western Civilization far too many to count atrocities conducted against non-whites. Thus, it is a great mystery as to why we should care about preserving Western culture Western Civilization's legacy.
And yes, since the mention of Columbus did not include all of his ventures in the New World, he did serve as a reprehensible person.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how the DOJ’s latest memo affirms our religious rights and liberty. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Besides the fact that some of these principles were already in play, we should note the reason for the DOJ's memo: it is to enable and protect religiously conservative Christians when, in their business ventures, they discriminate against the LGBT community. That keeps that part of the base in line despite Trump's failures both in judgment and morals.
Allowing religiously conservative Christians to discriminate against the LGBT community in society doesn't show a commitment to rights, it exhibits a devotion to reestablishing privilege for these same Christians. For liberty deal with equality, privilege is used to marginalize others. Liberty - equality equals privilege, not rights. And nothing says that some religiously conservative Christians are seeking privilege more than their past opposition to same-sex marriage in society. It biblically right for them to prohibit same-sex marriage in churches that believe that the Bible is God's Word. I stand with them on that. But society is made up of a diverse group of people of which some are religiously conservative Christians. And when religiously conservative Christians opposed same-sex marriage, they were trampling over the religious rights of those whose religious beliefs accommodate or support same-sex marriage. And, in fact, some of the objections to the legalization of same-sex marriage included the fear that it would infringe on the religious rights of these same religiously conservative Christians. Those rights revolved around the freedom to marginalize, to various degrees, the LGBT community in society. And, as was said before, the DOJ memo helps keep these same religiously conservative Christians in the fold of those who support the President.
So the DOJ memo is not primarily concerned with rights as it is with poll numbers and the future votes of those who want to marginalize the LGBT community in society.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
When Will It Be The Conservative Protestants' Turn To Face A Hostile Revolution?
For the Roman Church, it was the French Revolution. For the Orthodox Church, it was the Russian Revolution. Whose revolution will be the temporary undoing of the Conservative Protestant Church?
Only time will tell but repeated historical mistakes occurring in America are causing some to shout, 'Spoiler Alert"! "Spoiler Alert"! What are those historical mistakes?
For both the Roman and the Orthodox Churches, the problem was the behavior of their best friends. Their best friends were those with wealth and power. In France, the clergy made up the First Estate and, in parliamentary proceedings, they had the back of the aristocracy. Note that just prior to the French Revolution, the aristocracy had the tax burden transferred almost totally onto the backs of rest of the populace even though France was already struggling with problems stemming from a high national debt.
Note the Orthodox Church had been under the control of the Tsars for a long time. In addition, close to the 1917 Russian Revolution, the clergy supported the Tsar's policies that so hurt much of the populace, but created and benefited the Capitalists who first took over for the Tsar in February of 1917. It wasn't until that October that the Bolsheviks took control, an event that triggered a civil war.
There were a couple of other factors here. Realize the difference in attitudes that the predecessor to the Bolsheviks, the Social Democrats, had toward the Church in 1905 (click here and read part 1 of Luxemburg's article on Socialism and the churches) from what the Bolsheviks had. And we should note the clergy's attitude toward the Social Democrats despite the fact that, according to Luxemburg, the Social Democrats did not speak against the clergy.
We should also note that, according to Orthodox Church sources, the Church had been somewhat prepared for the Revolution and some of the clergy was discontent with the current regime because of how it controlled the Church--a view that seems not to fully coincide with what Luxemburg observed. However, we should note that in 1918, the head of the Russian Church criticized the government for how it withdrew from WW I. That criticism followed a Bolshevik decree that took away the legal rights of the Church (http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/history7.aspx#Revolution ). The effect that both popular opposition to and Capitalists' support for WW I had on the revolutionaries cannot be underestimated here.
The key factor relating to the respective churches in both revolutions is that the clergy did not adequately speak against the exploitation and abuse of the people by those with wealth and power. Rather, the Church charged people with the responsibility of enduring the hardships and respecting authority.
Let's now go to the present and Conservative Protestantism here in America. First, like the Roman Church prior to the French Revolution and the Orthodox Church prior to the Russian Revolution, the Conservative Protestant Church is tied closely to the nation. Yes, it isn't controlled by our national leaders, at least from what we can see. But it still has close ties to our nation. In addition, the Conservative Protestant Church, for the most part, identifies with our national identity as described by our nation's Founding Fathers and key documents.
Thus, the Conservative Protestant Church strongly supports the economic system adopted by our nation without acknowledging the changes that have taken place in that system over the years. For example, our nation no longer depends on the same kind of capitalist system that existed just after WW II. The previous capitalist system allowed the governments around the world to exercise more control over their own economies. With today's neoliberalism or neoliberal capitalism, foreign investors have more and more control over a given nation's economy. And yet, many Conservative Protestants talk about these systems as if they were the same.
And what many Conservative Protestant leaders praise about our system is its emphasis and focus on property rights. But the problem here is that these property rights are celebrated without discussing what went into acquisition and accumulation of property. In other words, the contributions of others to the gaining of one's own property and the implied social contract those contributions carry are not considered. Regardless of how one gained new or more property, that property is seen as being wholly belonging to the property owner. An example of how property ownership could be questioned is to ask, during the days of slavery, how much property did a landowner really own when the bulk of the work that produced wealth was done by slaves?
Here, we could ask how much of James Madison's wealth morally belonged to him despite the fact that his slaves did the bulk of the work in creating and building his wealth--that is the wealth he didn't inherit.
Likewise, one of the popular slogans used at the 2012 Republican Convention was 'we built it.' The suggestion of the slogan was that the person of wealth was wholly responsible for their own wealth. The reality was that there were many interdependencies that contributed to the wealth of any single person and thus there were claims on some of that wealth because of those interdependencies. The Republicans, however, saw this issue as a private property issue only and sought to minimize, if not eradicate, those claims in the name of private property.
This kind of celebration of private property is rampant among Conservative Protestants. But there is a problem. During our current from of capitalism, commonly called neoliberalism, there is an ever growing consolidation of wealth towards the wealthy with a persevering stagnation of income for the middle class on down along with a shrinking of the Middle Class. In addition, many Conservative Protestants are more upset with government assistance programs than they are with the poverty wages that require these services for low-skilled workers. So we can add that many Conservative Protestants are demanding a drop in safety net programs and services claiming that such are unaffordable. At the same time, Conservative Protestants are not pushing for raising or even maintaining the current tax rates on the wealthiest and on businesses due to their beliefs in private property.
Many Conservative Protestants also lean toward being military hawks and insist on spending the necessary amount of money on keeping America the #1 military power in the world. However, many such Protestants don't see that the primary beneficiary of such programs are those with wealth. And there seems to be no widespread call for increased spending on veterans' services by these Protestants. Thus, the combination of military spending with the shifting of the tax burden from the wealthiest to either the rest or to debt is not challenged by Conservative Protestants.
As many Conservative Protestants are now willing to study and do something about the systemic racism that has plagued our nation from its beginning, they, like their French and Russian counterparts are not willing to preach repentance to the wealthy for the sins they commit in trying to maximize their own wealth. In addition, Conservative Protestants, for the most part, have great difficulty acknowledging global climate change and how human activity has contributed to that. Such a recognition would imply the necessity of significant changes in the lifestyles of all. And finally, what Conservative Protestants are most vocal about is the nation's changing sexual morals. Here again, Conservative Protestants are more than willing to pummel individuals regarding their sexual practices and orientations while they are ever so silent about the exploitive behavior of the wealthy.
America will follow of two paths and both concern Conservative Protestants. One path is that Conservative Protestants will become scapegoats if our nation collapses due to its current direction. The other path is that some type of revolution could occur and Conservative Protestantism will be deemed an enemy because of its stalwart support for and defense of the current status quo. We already see the latter in terms of the growing recognition of LGBT rights. In addition, many Conservative Protestants recognize that the current direction of our country now makes them feel as exiles in a foreign land.
The past can help us envision our future. And if that is so, we should note the similarities that many of us Conservative Protestants have with our Roman Church counterparts just prior to the French Revolution and Orthodox Church counterparts just prior to the Russian Revolution. The protection of and refusal to preach repentance to the wealthy along with its disregard for the system caused economic hardships suffered by those in the lower class are practices shared by Conservative Protestants in America with their pre-revolutionary counterparts from the other churches. What is new is the need for us Conservative Protestants to recognize the future environmental hazards we are leaving for those who will follow us.
In any event, as we survey the ties that the Church has historically had with wealth in power, as exemplified in the three periods reviewed above, is it any wonder why some on the Left believe that the Church is just another institution of indoctrination to maintain the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power? And because of that, it seems that the Church, the Conservative Protestant Church this time, is on the road to becoming the whipping boy of those in favor of revolution. And Conservative Protestants will have no one to blame for that except for ourselves.
Only time will tell but repeated historical mistakes occurring in America are causing some to shout, 'Spoiler Alert"! "Spoiler Alert"! What are those historical mistakes?
For both the Roman and the Orthodox Churches, the problem was the behavior of their best friends. Their best friends were those with wealth and power. In France, the clergy made up the First Estate and, in parliamentary proceedings, they had the back of the aristocracy. Note that just prior to the French Revolution, the aristocracy had the tax burden transferred almost totally onto the backs of rest of the populace even though France was already struggling with problems stemming from a high national debt.
Note the Orthodox Church had been under the control of the Tsars for a long time. In addition, close to the 1917 Russian Revolution, the clergy supported the Tsar's policies that so hurt much of the populace, but created and benefited the Capitalists who first took over for the Tsar in February of 1917. It wasn't until that October that the Bolsheviks took control, an event that triggered a civil war.
There were a couple of other factors here. Realize the difference in attitudes that the predecessor to the Bolsheviks, the Social Democrats, had toward the Church in 1905 (click here and read part 1 of Luxemburg's article on Socialism and the churches) from what the Bolsheviks had. And we should note the clergy's attitude toward the Social Democrats despite the fact that, according to Luxemburg, the Social Democrats did not speak against the clergy.
We should also note that, according to Orthodox Church sources, the Church had been somewhat prepared for the Revolution and some of the clergy was discontent with the current regime because of how it controlled the Church--a view that seems not to fully coincide with what Luxemburg observed. However, we should note that in 1918, the head of the Russian Church criticized the government for how it withdrew from WW I. That criticism followed a Bolshevik decree that took away the legal rights of the Church (http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/history7.aspx#Revolution ). The effect that both popular opposition to and Capitalists' support for WW I had on the revolutionaries cannot be underestimated here.
The key factor relating to the respective churches in both revolutions is that the clergy did not adequately speak against the exploitation and abuse of the people by those with wealth and power. Rather, the Church charged people with the responsibility of enduring the hardships and respecting authority.
Let's now go to the present and Conservative Protestantism here in America. First, like the Roman Church prior to the French Revolution and the Orthodox Church prior to the Russian Revolution, the Conservative Protestant Church is tied closely to the nation. Yes, it isn't controlled by our national leaders, at least from what we can see. But it still has close ties to our nation. In addition, the Conservative Protestant Church, for the most part, identifies with our national identity as described by our nation's Founding Fathers and key documents.
Thus, the Conservative Protestant Church strongly supports the economic system adopted by our nation without acknowledging the changes that have taken place in that system over the years. For example, our nation no longer depends on the same kind of capitalist system that existed just after WW II. The previous capitalist system allowed the governments around the world to exercise more control over their own economies. With today's neoliberalism or neoliberal capitalism, foreign investors have more and more control over a given nation's economy. And yet, many Conservative Protestants talk about these systems as if they were the same.
And what many Conservative Protestant leaders praise about our system is its emphasis and focus on property rights. But the problem here is that these property rights are celebrated without discussing what went into acquisition and accumulation of property. In other words, the contributions of others to the gaining of one's own property and the implied social contract those contributions carry are not considered. Regardless of how one gained new or more property, that property is seen as being wholly belonging to the property owner. An example of how property ownership could be questioned is to ask, during the days of slavery, how much property did a landowner really own when the bulk of the work that produced wealth was done by slaves?
Here, we could ask how much of James Madison's wealth morally belonged to him despite the fact that his slaves did the bulk of the work in creating and building his wealth--that is the wealth he didn't inherit.
Likewise, one of the popular slogans used at the 2012 Republican Convention was 'we built it.' The suggestion of the slogan was that the person of wealth was wholly responsible for their own wealth. The reality was that there were many interdependencies that contributed to the wealth of any single person and thus there were claims on some of that wealth because of those interdependencies. The Republicans, however, saw this issue as a private property issue only and sought to minimize, if not eradicate, those claims in the name of private property.
This kind of celebration of private property is rampant among Conservative Protestants. But there is a problem. During our current from of capitalism, commonly called neoliberalism, there is an ever growing consolidation of wealth towards the wealthy with a persevering stagnation of income for the middle class on down along with a shrinking of the Middle Class. In addition, many Conservative Protestants are more upset with government assistance programs than they are with the poverty wages that require these services for low-skilled workers. So we can add that many Conservative Protestants are demanding a drop in safety net programs and services claiming that such are unaffordable. At the same time, Conservative Protestants are not pushing for raising or even maintaining the current tax rates on the wealthiest and on businesses due to their beliefs in private property.
Many Conservative Protestants also lean toward being military hawks and insist on spending the necessary amount of money on keeping America the #1 military power in the world. However, many such Protestants don't see that the primary beneficiary of such programs are those with wealth. And there seems to be no widespread call for increased spending on veterans' services by these Protestants. Thus, the combination of military spending with the shifting of the tax burden from the wealthiest to either the rest or to debt is not challenged by Conservative Protestants.
As many Conservative Protestants are now willing to study and do something about the systemic racism that has plagued our nation from its beginning, they, like their French and Russian counterparts are not willing to preach repentance to the wealthy for the sins they commit in trying to maximize their own wealth. In addition, Conservative Protestants, for the most part, have great difficulty acknowledging global climate change and how human activity has contributed to that. Such a recognition would imply the necessity of significant changes in the lifestyles of all. And finally, what Conservative Protestants are most vocal about is the nation's changing sexual morals. Here again, Conservative Protestants are more than willing to pummel individuals regarding their sexual practices and orientations while they are ever so silent about the exploitive behavior of the wealthy.
America will follow of two paths and both concern Conservative Protestants. One path is that Conservative Protestants will become scapegoats if our nation collapses due to its current direction. The other path is that some type of revolution could occur and Conservative Protestantism will be deemed an enemy because of its stalwart support for and defense of the current status quo. We already see the latter in terms of the growing recognition of LGBT rights. In addition, many Conservative Protestants recognize that the current direction of our country now makes them feel as exiles in a foreign land.
The past can help us envision our future. And if that is so, we should note the similarities that many of us Conservative Protestants have with our Roman Church counterparts just prior to the French Revolution and Orthodox Church counterparts just prior to the Russian Revolution. The protection of and refusal to preach repentance to the wealthy along with its disregard for the system caused economic hardships suffered by those in the lower class are practices shared by Conservative Protestants in America with their pre-revolutionary counterparts from the other churches. What is new is the need for us Conservative Protestants to recognize the future environmental hazards we are leaving for those who will follow us.
In any event, as we survey the ties that the Church has historically had with wealth in power, as exemplified in the three periods reviewed above, is it any wonder why some on the Left believe that the Church is just another institution of indoctrination to maintain the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power? And because of that, it seems that the Church, the Conservative Protestant Church this time, is on the road to becoming the whipping boy of those in favor of revolution. And Conservative Protestants will have no one to blame for that except for ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)