Why We Religiously Conservative Christians Don't Get Democracy

 When talking about what to look for in a dating partner and/or potential spouse, I've suggested one should look for someone who is loving, trustworthy, and is aware of one's own faults. The first two traits have nothing to do with the article being reviewed tonight, but the last trait does. That is because if we get involved with someone who is not aware of their own faults, eventually they will project onto us their own faults. This is what might be occurring in the article being reviewed here.

Albert Mohler (click here for a bio) wrote an article, I am not sure of its date, that was posted on the Ligonier Ministry website. The article was about the growth of secularism in America (click here for the article). In that article, Mohler compares the growth of secularism in America with the same in Europe. Mohler stated that there is a difference in the growth of the two except in American universities. There, Mohler claims, that growth secularism in our universities is comparable with that in Europe.

Mohler cites Peter Berger in laying the blame for the secularization in America at the feet of intellectual elites and their influence on and through universities. He first cites Berger as saying that the rate of secularization of America was comparable with the secularization of Europe; it just took another form. Berger, according to Mohler, states that it is the loss of religion's authority that led to the current secularization of America. . Berger continued with a prediction that this secularization along with the loss of religious authority would result in a capitulation of believers in God with the 'secular agenda.'

Mohler then cites Charles Taylor in stating that, because of modernity, religion has now become more of an option in the West. And with that,  belief has become 'an exercise in personal autonomy.' That is belief in the God who has all authority is said to be comparable with any other belief people might have.

Taylor traces the transition of the place of religion in America to 3 stages: the pre-Elightenment years where unbelief was impossible through to the 'late-modern era' where faith becomes impossible. What enabled that transition was the Enlightenment with its multiple ways of looking at the world. According to Taylor, it is the mere belief in a deity that has been lost, but the belief in a personal God who speaks with and exercises authority.

According to Mohler, all of this has caused Christians to become 'intellectual outlaws.' And what is involved in this secularization is not just an intellectual revolution, but a moral one too.

Considering that we have part of the 1st Amendment in The Constitution dealing with the freedom of religion, the only rational response must quote the title of the Miles David piece of music titled 'So What.' Mohler is simply singing the Things Ain't What They Use To Be blues. Things have changed since the time when Christianity was more influential than it is today. But Mohler and his quotations from Berger and Taylor have not told a complete enough story of why things have changed with respect to religion's authority, the Christian religion to be specific, in society. 

Here we might consider the history of Christianity's influence in America. That influence once included its support for multiple expressions of white supremacy against multiple races, America's capitalist economic system which includes a growing wealth disparity between the white race and some other races, America's patriotic zeal for imperialism and militarism. We might even include our slow response to climate science. In other words, being either unwilling or unable to admit our faults has caused us to scapegoat others, such as intellectual elites, for our failures. If we go by the Biblical verse that tells us that we will know God's followers by their fruits, what does American Church History say about what should be Christianity's moral authority?

However, we need to return to the first reaction to Mohler's article expressed by this blog article: So What. Again, we have the 1st Amendment and we are suppose to be living in a democracy. Why is there such concern with the increased secularization of America and the loss of influence by Christianity? What does the freedom of worship/religion mean to Mohler and anyone who shares his views here? Does belief in the God of the Bible imply that we should want Christianity to have a dominant place of influence in our democratic society? Is working for such a position for Christianity in society even Biblical? And what about the prevalence of injustice that occurs throughout American Church history? These are the unanswered questions in Mohler's article. And they are also the questions we should ask ourselves first before considering the importance of Mohler's article.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 6, 2016

March 23
To Russell Moore and his blogpost on how Augustine’s writings apply to this election year. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

While Moore sees prosperity gospelers being the finders of scapegoats for when an empire suffers trials or even falls, he still expresses faith in America's democracy. But perhaps he should note the works of historian Chalmers Johnson who claimed that republics that become empires will see either the end of their empire or the decimation of their republic. Why is that? It has to do with the structure demanded by empires. That the amount of external control needed to keep one's empire in check eventually turns inward because of the overhead needed to maintain control. And as it turns inward, the residents of the empire lose their privileges that make their nation a republic. 

Johnson cites 3 examples including the US as examples. The first example was Rome where its empire caused Rome to lose its Republic status and became a ruthless dictatorship under the auspices of Caesar. Great Britain picked an alternative route by letting go of its empire. Johnson made an educated guess about America saying it would lose its Republic status if it doesn't change. And evidence that supports Johnson's speculation on America can be found in a recent study stating that America has become an oligarchy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ).

How does the above concern itself with Augustine? Certainly Moore is correct to cite Augustine and how the Church is a group of pilgrims who have a measured concern with the present because of its long term hope in its eternal future. But at the same time, our concern for the present should be more of a concern for justice than for one's own comfort. And that is what is being missed by many Christians today. We are so concerned with losing a status quo that has provided us with much contentment and prosperity that we lack the proper motivation to address the injustices being carried out in the here and now. And this should draw our attention to the empire in which we live because empires tend to produce more injustices than non-empires because of the degree of unwanted control that is warranted. This is the point that Moore should have addressed while expressing confidence in America's democratic processes while pointing us to Augustine.

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

April 1

To Suzanne See and her blogpost review of a book on understand jihad. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

What's missing is this: one's view of Islam, regardless of the region, must take into account the West's, and this includes America, interventions and attempts to control Muslim's Holy Land, the Middle East. And the question becomes does the book being reviewed here include that context. After all, the West's involvement, including Modern Zionism in Israel, in the Middle East is extensive and involves some of Islam's most holy sites. The history of the West's involvement in the Middle East includes European exploitation for the sake of oil as well as the creation of artificial national borders, coups, support for dictators and tyrants for business interests, support for terrorists, the selling of weapons, and invasions. And when we include that history with the fact that Islam is a religion that revolves around justice, then our understanding of Islam must include knowing well the context in which Islam currently operates. And such can present a challenge to us God-and-country loving Americans because of the vital part America plays in the making up of that context.

There are some positives to the book being reviewed and one of them is noting that Muslims do not form a monolith. Thus, it should follow that understanding Islam involves more than reading one book even if it is written by a former Muslim. And knowing that not all Muslims are the same should tell us that the Muslim understanding of jihad is not monolithic either.

Also, with his anti-Semitism, his bombastic treatment of dissent, and his advocacy for his nation in using the sword, why should Martin Luther be the reformer we mention when we say that Islam needs someone to change it?

Finally, why is love of country important? I am not saying that one should hate their country. I am saying that one can easily love their neighbor without loving one's own nation and, in fact, such an approach just might help us be more faithful to God.

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

April 2

To Michael Quinlan and his blogpost describing how secular man has dehumanized people in the world. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Though there are some valid points made here such as the points about the dehumanization involved with abortion, the problem is that this article is simply a conservative example of the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying. The pharisee declared his own state of righteousness and thus could find no fault with himself; but he could find many faults with others.

This pharisaical attitude can be found in the claims about sexual revolutionaries. It is also found in the claims about Marxists and Marxism. With the former, there seems to be no recognition of how the conservative opposition to same-sex marriage results in the dehumanization of those from the LGBT community. After all, to allow same-sex marriage in society would be to encourage people to regard those from the LGBT community as normal rather than to marginalize them by denying them full equality. Such is an example of dehumanizing others.

And the arguments made against Marxism lack objectivity. For the arguments take the first "attempts" at Marxism being the definition of Marxism itself. And the line that "acknowledges" that Marxism has not been tried in its "pure form" really misses the point. For if the attempts to implement Marxism were not close enough to what Marx said to be counted as Marxism, then we can't use examples like the Soviet Union, Red China, and Castro's Cuba as examples of how Marxism has failed. On the other hand, since many Marxists do not regard Marx as an secular infallible Pope, then waiting for a pure form of Marxism to come becomes an exercise in waiting for Godot. Rather, before we can criticize Marxism as a whole, we need to examine all of the examples in which Marxism has been or is being tried to before reaching a verdict. These examples would include the Paris Commune, the Spanish Revolution, as well as smaller examples such as worker co-ops where workers democratically control their workplaces.

On a side note, we could point to attempts at Marxism that left a trail of tears as a result. For example, when Iran's democratically elected leader moved to nationalize Iran's oil reserves, the US and the UK participated in a coup that replaced Iran's democratically elected government with a coup. That occurred in 1953. When Guatemala's newly elected President started to carry out agrarian reforms, the US orchestrated a coup and replaced this democratically elected leader with a tyrannical dictator. That was 1954. We could also point to similar examples in Greece ('67) and Chile ('73) as well as others. But such a trail of tears fails to indict Marxism. Rather, it indicts at least some of Marxism's opponents.

Instead of objectivity, we have the assumption of superiority and the claim that Conservative Catholicism has all the answers for what ails all individuals and all societies. And such ignores the history of the Roman Church and its many implementational as well as moral failures. But what is worse is the implication of this claim. That implication is that the world must submit to the Roman Church's teachings because the Roman Church has everything to teach others but nothing to learn--a saying adapted from a Martin Luther King line.

The approach to combat the dehumanization cited above is nothing more than an authoritarian approach where some people should be in charge of the rest because they have a monopoly on all truth and thus might even be more human than others. Again, we can use history to judge that claim. Here we should note that authoritarians do not know how to  work and play well with others in democracies. For such people do not look to share society with others as equals, rather they wish to share society with others by assuming a privileged position of possessing some degree of supremacy over others. Why? Because some people are more human than others.

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

April 5

To Denny Burk and his blogpost on pornography and Time’s article discussing it. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.

Considering that many performers have opted to work in porn because of an economic draft and that once there, they are abused and dehumanized and many suffer from PTSD, I think much of the criticisms used in the article above against porn are understated. So perhaps, the gov't should step in and regulate the porn industry in order to protect vulnerable people from exploitation.

But we also have to be careful about moral norms. We have to be careful because of a concept called liberty and freedom. It is one thing to have moral norms that can be freely chosen and it is another thing to state moral norms in ways that are mandated by law.

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

To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost about Edmund Burke’s support for Free Trade. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Considering that Smith and Burke were contemporaries of each other and that Smith so positively described Burke, then it is clear that both were reacting to a similarly perceived problem: Mercantilism. With Mercantilism, not only was there government power over trade increased, those who had power over government were people in business. So not only did government exercise over trade, it was for monetary reasons for both the government and selected sectors of the private sector.

So those supporting free trade or at least reduced trade restrictions aim at solving one problem but can easily become unaware of other problems. That is especially true for today when private sector elites are pushing free trade agreements on their respective governments for the same reason that private sector elites pushed government regulations on trade back in Burke's and Smith's day. It is because they could benefit from these agreements while not paying attention to the harm caused to others.

The term 'Free Trade' is like the term 'Free Market' in that we have to ask what the word Free relates to. And in both cases, it relates to government restrictions. And here we should note that restricting government power is not an absolute value to cherish, it is a relative one in that whether the restricting government power is good depends on a case by case basis. While lessening government restrictions in Burke's and Smith's day would challenge a certain private sector control over their government, restricting free trade today could present the same challenge to a certain private sector today. 

A good article on Free Trade can be found in The Globe And Mail (see http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/from-free-trade-to-forced-trade/article1163551/?page=all ). It discusses the difficulty that comes into play when measuring the effects and overall value of Free Trade. But their article contains one flaw. That flaw was that it picked a single nation, Canada, as its sample; it did not include the effects that Canada's free trade had with its trading partners.

Again, the word 'Free' i Free Trade denotes a relationship with the government. That the government has less and less control over trade. This can provide opportunity for improvement when government control exists to benefit selected elite sectors from the private or those in government, but it can become disheartening when government is functioning as a working representative of the people as a whole. When the latter occurs, then democratic control over society is weakened by free trade and given to wealthy private sector elites who may or may not reside in that particular nation. But the actual point of handing over more gov't control to those with wealth weakens working democracies and only strengthens elite-centered rule in nations whose governments are not working democracies.

One other point should be made. That point is that the benefit of Free Trade is not universal and absolute, it depends on what the Free Trade relates to in addition to the economic development of the trading partners. We've seen with Free Trade with Haiti and Mexico that US agriculture can drive certain farmers from those nations out of business so that those nations could experience significant deprivations of food. Or we've seen with other nations how food from poorer nations can be shipped to richer nations because people in richer nations can pay a higher price for the food and thus depriving the some of the people of those poorer nation opportunities to buy food produced in their own nations. In addition, Free Trade can prevent a nation from developing new sectors in its economy because competitive pricing makes that development impossible. We should note that much of American industry developed under protectionist policies. And now under Free Trade, we've lost a significant number of those industries while we have grown a financial sector that is so powerful that we are now classified as an oligarchy. And guess who are some of the biggest supporters of Free Trade. Here, what we should note is that supporters of Free Trade today do so using deductive rather than inductive reasoning. And thus, facts that would be derived by studying how Free Trade affects all involved are assumed to support their argument.

We Shouldn't Let The Pendulum Hit Us On The Way Out

A most revealing comment about how much of Conservative Christianity sees itself is made by Tim Keller. In his book, Center Church, Keller makes the following statement:

First, We have entered a post-Christian or post-Christiandom age. For centuries in the Western world, the Christian Church had a privileged place, but this is no longer true. Rather than being a force at the center of culture, Christianity has moved to the margins. ¹

This quote is important because it sets the table for the article being reviewed here. The article being reviewed was written by David Robertson (click here for the article). We are reviewing it because Robertson's article is describing a new King Of The Hill wannabe that is vying to take Christianity's privileged place in society. We should note here that reviewing this article is problematic because Robertson is writing observations of what is happening 'across the pond' in Scotland and I have little to no exposure with which to either confirm or challenge what he is saying. However, points can still be made in reviewing this article.

Robertson is sounding the general quarters alarm over secularism. However, the secularism he is warning us about is not the old comfortable shoe that many of us are use to. That secularism is defined in the beginning of his post as: the belief that the state, morals, education, etc should be independent of religion. (Chambers).  And Robertson mildly complains about the Christian acceptance of secularism while saying: most Christians are secularists in the sense that most secular societies describe secularism, when they state that they are simply about the separation of church and state. Most of us are happy to live in a secular society – one that is not run by the Church. Ironically, this definition of secularism is Karl Marx's definition of the abolishment of religion (click here).

The new secularism Robertson is warning us against is targeting Christianity for destruction. Because of that, Robertson makes the following accusations against this secularism: 

1. The New Secularism is being used as a disguise for a militant anti-religious philosophy
2. The New Secularism is irrational and illogical
3. The New Secularism is obsessed with sex and sexuality
4. The New Secularism is increasingly militant, intolerant and aggressive

Now again, this blog cannot speak to what Robertson has observed. But here, there now seems to be more attacks on Conservative Christianity than before. And when one reads the blog attacks he has received, one can understand his statement. But we should note two things here. First, some of his sample data used to support this point is coming from blogs.  For whatever reason, blogs bring out the worse in people regardless of their religion or lack thereof. So the question becomes whether the new secular blogposts attacking him really reflect on secularism or on something else like Western culture or humanity. 

But there is another point here. Is the animosity against Christianity which he has witnessed a first strike or a response to how Christians have represented Christ in the past? At this point, Robertson's reaction to the new secularism's animosity against Christianity is much like the West' reaction against terrorism. The story seems to always start with the injustices we've suffered without giving much thought to whether our gang has already caused others to suffer. Concerning terrorism, before we isolate our focus on 9-11, we should look at the sanction years in Iraq, which we both designed and enforced, and how they contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. We should look at how we sponsored Saddam Hussein in Iraq until he invaded a rich friend. This sponsorship included providing him with materials to make WMDs. We could even go all the way back to 1953 when we, along with the British, orchestrated a coup to replace a democratically elected government with a tyrant.

So with us Christians, we need to look back and see how Christians acted shamelessly before rushing to judge the New Secularists. This especially applies to Christians with ecclesiastical, financial, or political power.

This leads to Robertson's next point where he accuses the new secularism of not being in touch with reality as it accuses Christianity of being responsible for Islamic extremism. The murder of a British soldier, Lee Rigby, by 2 Islamic extremists introduces this point. Certainly, it is understandable for Robertson not to be able to connect the dots between Christianity and Islamic extremism. And this blog could not determine if there is any such connection between Christianity and Rigby's murderers. But what do we think when we look at Israel and its brutal occupation of the Palestinian territories (a state according to a couple of nations in the UN)? And when will we critically look at American and other Western policies supported by Conservative Christians in the name of patriotism? Perhaps we would hesitate calling the New Secularism 'irrational' for at least attributing Islamic extremism to Christianity.

To say Christianity is partially responsible for Islamic extremism is not to take away the responsibility of committing terror by the terrorists. But we have to look at the conditions that spawned the terrorism. And this is Noam Chomsky's point (expanded view in video, condensed view in article). Chomsky's point is that as we continually respond to the problems in the Middle East with overwhelming violence, then the response from our opponents will attempt to be at least just as violent. So as we continue to use violence to solve our problems, and as we continue to support dictators, as we did for a while with Saddam Hussein and as we do now with the Saudi Royal family, there will be a push back that attempts to keep up with the violence we use. And, again, as much as Christians support governments that use harsh violence on Muslims according to what fits our policies, then we can say that Christianity did contribute to the existence of Islamic extremism. And the attempt to make that connection is not irrational. In fact, the attempt to deny the connection just might be an instance of externalizing evil.

As for the New Secularism's enthusiastic focus on sex, they are not alone, others emphasize sex as well. But what has caused Robertson to make this charge is the push for equality for homosexuals. He complains that those who do not fall in line with the new sexual equality party line will be viciously attacked verbally. That is certainly becoming more and more true here in the states. But to just look at what how the New Secularists are treating those holding to traditional Christian values ignores the context for the animosity. 

I don't know about Scotland, but I remember a time in my life when homosexuality was treated as a crime. Now, let's compare Robertson's complaint to that. As in Robertson's first complaint, he doesn't consider what preceded the New Secularism's persecution of traditional Christian values on sex. And though we Christians don't deserve to be slandered or verbally abused to holding firm to Biblical sexual standards, we should take note of how past Christians have tried to use laws to persecute homosexuals--at least we have in America. 

Could it be that the strong reaction to our holding firm to Biblical standards on sex is a result of how we tried to have our way with prohibiting homosexuals from loving whom they choose in society. And we should recognize the differences between using Church discipline on church members who don't hold to Biblical Standards from using civil law on everyone in society to enforce the same standards.

Robertson's last charge is how the New Secularism is intolerant and becoming aggressive. He gives little evidence for this except to quote an educator who said that religion in the future should be a 'choice' that is 'freely followed' so long as it does not have an 'impact' on others. Robertson reacts rights way by telling us how his religion has an impact on others and thus he could not follow the guidelines. However, Robertson's reaction to this statement is premature in that what is meant by 'impact' is not well-defined. And thus we don't what that means. In addition, these were the words of a single educator rather than a group. There is practically no evidence given here that tells us what the New Secularists want. Just a single quote from a single educator. 

There are problems with Robertson's article here. The first problem is that we are given no data telling us of the popularity of the New Secularists.  All we are given are some anecdotes. And thus it is difficult to see if the actual threat of the New Secularists matches the possible threat based on their beliefs and actions. 

Another problem, which was already mentioned, is that attitudes/actions of the New Secularists are mentioned outside of any context and thus making it look like what the New Secularists are doing constitutes a first strike on Christianity or a reaction to Christian leadership from the past is difficult at best. 

Finally, and this is where the title comes in, if many of the actions which the New Secularists have exhibited are reactions to past Christian abuse of power, then protesting the New Secularist positions shows an inability to recognize the privileged status in society that Robertson's Christianity has had. And if Christianity had a privileged status, then the old secularism, see the above definition, never existed. But furthermore, if we do recognize the advances advocated by the New Secularists as taking place, what we are really witnessing is nothing more than a pendulum swing where the New Secularists are replacing Christians as having power. And if that is the case, the pendulum swing that favors the New Secularists just might, in many cases, reflect the past when the pendulum swing favored Christianity. So before anxiously lamenting the changing of the guard, we need to seriously reflect on and even contritely confess the past Christian abuse of privilege. At least that is how things stand on this side of the pond.


References

1. Center Church by Tim Keller, pg 259
   
   

ONIM For August 26, 2013

Christian News

• Methodist Church Puts Human Rights Slant On Investment -- Christian Today (UK)
• US Should Condemn Saudi Arabia Religious Abuses -- Christian Today (UK)
• Counting The Cost (Accurately) -- Christianity Today
• How UK Christians Can Respond To Secularism -- Christianity Today
• Why A Poor Country Keeps Building New Churches -- Christianity Today
• Why Church Attendance Shrinks -- The Christian Post
• Dr. King's March, Christians And Immigration Reform -- The Christian Post
• What Never Wears Out For Christians -- The Christian Post
• Black Churches Should Support LGBT -- Religion Dispatches
• Do Intelligent People Need Religion? -- Religion Dispatches
• When Evangelicals Change With The Culture -- The Christian Century
• McWages -- The Christian Century

World News

• Drone Operator Feels like Sociopath -- Political Blind Spot
• Radioactive Groundwater Near Fukushima Nears Sea -- Yahoo News
• Fukushima Apocalypse Is Possible -- ZNet
• Workers Fired For 5 Minute Break -- Huffington Post
• Manning Sentenced To 35 Years -- Washington Post
• Martin Luther King Did Not Comfort The Powerful -- USA Today
• Obama Is Not King's Dream -- Global Research
• Blacks Are Asked To Leave Restaurant Because A White Customer Felt Threatened -- Progressive Populist
• South Caroline City Approves Homeless Apartheid Law For Business District -- Think Progress
• Residents Worried About Health Risks Surrounding A Landfill -- NJTV Online
• Hydrofracking Could Strain Water Resources In West -- NY Times
• A Call To Action Against Russia's War On Free Expression -- Pen International
• Sex Trafficking Is Occurring On US Ships -- CBC News
• Walmart Plans To Takeover Urban Markets -- Popular Resistance
• What You Need To Know About The Egyptian Crisis -- The Progressive