Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For September 21, 2022

 Sept 15

To Jerry Salyer and the reposting of his article that praises Sir Roger Scruton for his portrayal of Conservatism in Scruton's book, Conservatism: An Invitation To The Great Tradition. His article was reposted by the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The above combines the contents of a fan letter for an individual and worship of an ideology. On top of that, it seems to confuse Liberal and leftist as well as shows an uncertainty about the definition of fascism.

When will ideologues from all sides including libertarian, conservative, liberals, and leftists realize that their sacred cow belief is not omniscient and thus does not even deserve a place with the Golden Calf worshiped by the Israelites as they waited for for Moses to descend from the mountain. Chris Hedges, a real leftist rather than a liberal, said it best when he said that at the heart of idolatry is self-worship. And with that self-worship comes perhaps a missing but false sense of significance. It is a sense. of significance that easily leads to pride and then arrogance. And those who pay attention to the Scriptures know how pride and arrogance are viewed by God. 

Politically, I lean toward Marx. But 'lean' is the the operative term. I lean toward Marx because of his analysis of Capitalism. That analysis is most fitting in today's economy that revolves around the whims of shareholders--the wealthiest ones in particular. But I don't try to formulate a Marxism that is omniscient because I can't. No one can. And the same goes for Conservatism. Ideologues look on those who only lean toward their sacred cow ideologies as being traitors and members in name only. And what ideologues are in denial of are the facts on the ground that contradict how good their pet ideologies are--as Ted Koppel pointed out to Sean Hannity about what Hannity does.

Because I only lean toward Marx, I borrow from other ideologies because many ideologies, even though not omniscient, have contributions to make. And even my new hybrid, or Frankenstein, ideology is not omniscient. 

One final point that the above article provides evidence for is this. The more ideological a person is, the more authoritarian they become.

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

Sept 17

To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost that revolves around a cartoon where the the characters distinguish between nature as it was designed by God and nature as it exists now after the fall of Adam. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The above cartoon is wonderful and perhaps is one we religiously conservative Christians should apply to issues like sexual orientation and gender identity. 

For it seems that when it comes to what we say about sexual orientation and gender identity,  we describe them only in terms of nature as how God designed it rather than by nature as it is because it was corrupted by the fall. And thus, we deny what part of nature is saying to to us about sexual orientation and gender identity.

    

Comments Which Conservatives Block On Their Blogs For August 24, 2022

 Aug 17

To Stephen Spinnenweber and his article about how desires for same-sex relations are significantly more sinful that desires for unbiblical heterosexual relations. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The problem that some Christian traditionalists have is that they are either literally or virtually  substituting their pet traditions for the Scriptures. And that is what we see in the above article. Not once did the writer appeal to the Scriptures when discussing the issue concupiscence, not once. Rather, the appeals are made to some Reformed standards as if they were as canonical as the Scriptures are.

Another problem is that the above discussion shows little understanding of same-sex attraction and nature. Certainly we must agree with Paul when he states in Romans 1 that homosexuality goes against nature. But we need to be more precise there. Homosexuality goes against nature as God designed it. But since we see bisexuality in over 1,000 species of animals, what do we really know about what nature is saying to each individual person. What we see in the animal kingdom shows that nature has fallen from its original design. And so when someone claims that it is nature that has determined their sexual orientation or gender identity, that might very well be true, even though it provides no excuse before God. But since we are all subject in varying ways to a fallen nature, we need to be extremely careful in how we apply the nature argument to sexual issues. Here, we need to err on the side of compassion.

Finally, whether desires for unbiblical same-sex relations are worse than desires for unbiblical heterosexual relations depends on the context. After all, since both are sins, there is no significant difference when talking about whether one has sexual sins. Nor is there a significant difference between the two when the context is God's final judgment. But how should the difference between the two desires dictate how we treat fellow Christians or regard ourselves in the Church in terms of how much we can participate? There is not answer explicit answer to that question in the above article.  But that article seems to be based on a specific issue; with a particular agenda. Therefore, the general way in which concupiscence is discussed in the above article is really unhelpful. It can promote a lot of unfair and unfounded treatments of fellow believers who might be struggling with unbiblical sexual desires or gender dysphoria. The writer needs to write the above article with a specific application in mind in order to avoid encouraging Christians to respond wrongly to the differences that exist between desiring unbiblical same-sex relations and desiring unbiblical heterosexual relations.

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

To Sir Roger Scruton and his blogpost praised Western Civilization and tried debunk criticisms of it. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

If we judge any civilization by how it  treats its own, one could make a case for many civilizations to be on par with Western Civilization. Of course the same case could have been made for Nazi Germany while it was winning WW II. And this is where Gandhi's famous quote about Western Civilization comes in to play. In responding to a reporter's question about what he thought of Western Civilization, Gandhi said in response: 'I think it would be a good idea.'

Perhaps Gandhi was thinking of what Frederick Douglas wrote about what July 4th meant to the slave when he gave that response:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

Whose view of celebrating July 4th should have held sway then? Was it the white citizens of America because what America had done for them or was it the slave's view of America because of what America had done to them? Perhaps what Jesus said in Matthew 5:43-47 could answer the question:

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

Now the odd thing about using Jesus's quote here is that the quote would seem to apply to them more than the white audience who were listening to Douglas speak. After all, while they were not the enemy of America's part of Western Civilization, America's part of Western Civilization was an enemy to them. So think about what Jesus's quote would mean to America's part of Western Civilization back then

And while there is no slavery today, there is still systemic racism, abuse, and exploitation  of people of color inside our borders while there is militarization, exploitation, and dependence on both the rule of force and tyrants outside of them. As for the European part, there is still dependence on results of past colonialism and both the rule of force and foreign tyrants for its welfare.  Though we should add that the European sector of Western Civilization seems to have fewer old bad habits within their own borders  than the American sector.

We can't judge a civilization without looking at all of its most significant relationships. And so when we look at how Western Civilization related to its outsiders and marginalized people, Western Civilization is found sorely wanting.. And it is only a fragile ego that seeks to compensate for its self-doubts by so easily praising itself in the light of its history of how it treated others.

But heck, if some here must be praised to feel good about themselves, there are no words that could be said which could give them reason for pause in celebrating themselves and their heritage.

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

To J.F. Solís for the part of his article that was quoted in Heidelblog which mocks Greg Johnson for talking about the struggles that same-sex attracted Christians have in living the Christian life.  This part of Solís's article was quoted in a heidelblog post.

Besides the fact that the article cited comes from a very rigid Roman Catholic view of both sex and celibacy, we should note that what was quoted shows the writer's disdain for and disgust with people like Greg Johnson. So what if Johnson's claim about gay celibate Christians having given up 'everything the world values' is just a little bit of an overstatement. What is at the heart of the matter is the struggle that same-sex attracted Christians have over a part of our lives that produces one of the strongest grips on thinking and behavior of all of us: sex. So while Solís, because of his rigid thinking, mocks Johnson by saying that indeed the world does not value sodomy, the real issue is that what the world very much values is not sodomy per se, but sexual intimacy. And why Solís did not pick up on that is both a bit shocking but not mysterious.

What the article cited as well as Heidelblog, which quoted this particular part of the article, are demonstrating here is a fear and perhaps even hatred for those from the LGBT community, especially those who claim to be Christians. And this is where we need to warn Solís, Heidelblog, and those who could favorably relate to Solís's views about the lessons to be learned from the parable of the two men praying (Luke 18:9-14). If we are always in such desperate need for God's mercy, as Reformed Theology teaches us,  and if, as James mentions in the second chapter of his epistle, that we need to show mercy rather than judgment because we are all lawbreakers, which is a point that Paul also made in Romans 2, then this distain for, disgust with, fear and hatred for those Christians who are struggling with their sexuality goes against the grain of believing the Gospel. Yes, sexual purity as defined by the Scriptures is essential for each Christian and in the Church. But so is treating all fellow believers with the same grace and mercy that God continually shows us in Christ.

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

Aug 18

To Leila Miller for the part of her article that was quoted in Heidelblog which warned us not to be fooled by people who are nice but might be giving us wrong theology. 

Leila Miller's full article can be found at:

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2022/dont-be-fooled-by-nice

One doesn't have to believe what a friendly nice person says to you to appreciate their warmth. Genuine warmth should always be celebrated regardless of what they are saying.

My fear is that in trying to avoid overestimating being nice, too many fellow Reformed Christians fail to understand the fruit of the spirit and the charge to correct people with gentleness because of our own weaknesses and failures.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 14, 2020

 Sept 18

To Andrew Latham and his blogpost that accuses Marx and Engels as being racists and of early founders of Marx as embracing slavery. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I cannot speak much to racism in Marx except to say that what is written above does not make him stand out from either most leaders in America or from people like Tocqueville. Whereas Marx saw in Germany the hope for the future, Tocqueville saw in Great Britain the superior society. In addition, Tocqueville wrote about Blacks and Native Americans in similar ways as is being attributed to Marx and Engels above. And yet that seems to not have been important enough for Latham to mention. And unlike Tocqueville, Marx did not get to witness what was going on in the United States.

But as for slavery, Latham fails to mention Marx's relationship with Abraham Lincoln. It has been summarized as one where they communicated and Lincoln learned from Marx without becoming a Marxist (see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/07/27/you-know-who-was-into-karl-marx-no-not-aoc-abraham-lincoln/  ). Marx spoke against American slavery in class terms. He corrected the perception that London's media presented of our Civil War which was that of a battle between protectionism vs free trade. Marx said that it was about slavery (see  'The North American Civil War (October, 1961) in   https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/internationalist/pamphlets/MARX-on-Slavery-OptV5.pdf  ). In Marx's congratulatory letter to Lincoln for winning a second term, he criticized the South by calling it an 'oligarchy of 300,000 slave holders and described the Southern cause as 'property against labor' (see   https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm ). In 1861, Marx called slavery a horror (see  https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/11.htm ).

Yes, Marx made more than just mistakes with some of his views, though it is very debatable whether those who committed great atrocities while claiming to represent him were actually following what he  wrote. Rosa Luxemburg, a socialist contemporary of Vladimir Lenin criticized Lenin's regime as imitating a bourgeoisie dictatorship in its structure and operation. Why she said that is the real issue. For Lenin did everything to ensure that proletariat rule would not be his way of governing Russia (see  https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm ). In fact, none of the big 3 leaders of the Russian Revolution were Proletariats. Rather, they led a vanguard movement equating themselves with Marx's revolution. We should note that it was their vanguardism, not Marx's teaching, that led to their tyrannical rule in Russia and we could say the same of Mao in China. We should note that because our 2 major political parties portray themselves as vanguards as well.

So why was the above article written. My guess is that it was written to inspire people to view Marx in all-or-nothing terms and thus to reject anything associated with Marx. And if I am correct, by doing so, Latham is speaking as an authoritarian which is something for which we should all condemn Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, and Castro for ruling like one.

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

Sept 24

To Sir Roger Scruton and his article that heavily criticizes the replacement of classical music with avant-garde. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The only problem that occurs when discussing the classical tradition and avant-garde is when we try to force a false dichotomy between the two onto the listener. Just because avant-garde might, in many cases, better express the world in which we have been living doesn't mean that we can dispose of all of the music from the past. Likewise, just because of the magnificent contributions and works of the classical period doesn't mean that we should disregard boundaries crossed by avant-garde music.

While Scruton uses the views of the music critic Robert Reilly to make his case. And while Scruton tries to establish Reilly's musical authority to speak on such matters by presenting him as a kind of Renaissance man, I would like to think that Leonard Bernstein also possesses significant enough credentials to speak about music. He talks favorably about Schoenberg's explorations and achievements while telling us that we cannot escape the past (see  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olwVvbWd-tg  ).

We see 12-tone scales and other more exploratory approaches to music in some Jazz artists. Why? it is because they believe that the rules and new boundaries set are tools rather than goals. After all, music is first about communication rather than about techniques and tools. Music, like all of the arts, are to reflect life rather than try to meet some idealistic standard.

And in reflecting life, music is a barometer for where we are as a people. Rather than criticize avant-garde, I would hope that Scruton would spend his time on what the overly simplistic approach to music that we see in pop music tells us about people in general. How the rejection of complexity in music indicates that we have a population that believes that life must simple. And in so believing, we see more and more people becoming unable to see reality for what it is because they cannot tolerate complexity. And that is where avant-garde comes in.  It has simply introduced more complexity and is overly criticized by some because they cannot accept that complexity.

Thus, there is no reason to either reject classical music or avant-garde or any other approach to music that tries to adequately reflect the the complexity that is so much a part of life in every age.

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

Sept 24

To G. Shane Morris and his blogpost that claims that it is progressives, not evangelicals who are obsessed with sex. This appeared in the Troubler of Israel blog on Patheos.

IMO, the above article indicates that Morris is too defensive to understand the complaints made about us religiously conservative Christians. Here is the complaint, that in terms of legislation and politics, many religiously religiously conservative Christians are obsessed with controlling the sexual practices of fellow citizens, especially those who are unbelievers, while we say nothing about America's immoral wars and support the cutting of social safety nets by the government.

If we can disagree with other religions while fully supporting their right to meet and practice, how is it that we are unable to to disagree with the sexual practices of unbelievers while allowing them the freedom to follow their own sexual mores? The concern from many unbelievers isn't about us agreeing with their sexual practices and relationships. Rather it is about us imposing our sexual mores on them. For the most part, religiously conservative Christians have fought tooth and nail against full equality for the LGBT community. And we have done so partly because such equality would cause us to have more contact with them than we care to.

At the same time, many of us religiously conservative Christians express no qualms when our nation separates kids from parents and locks everyone up. Many of us show no concern about the cutting or reducing of social safety nets nor do we want to admit that there is systemic racism in our nation. We even cheer the sending of our troops into harm's way while sharply condemning as being unpatriotic those who oppose, or even question, our wars.

Certainly some of us believe that the Church should be in charge of helping the needy. But America's conservative Church has no such interest in helping everyone. Don't we understand why many conservative churches move out of urban areas into the suburbs? And yet some of us want the conservative Church to take care of all who are in need.

In addition, the note by Iain Lovejoy noted the problem with the field hospital.

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

Oct 6

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that accuses CRT of suppressing dissent. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Odd that Clark would take one school's attempt to accommodate CRT and attribute that to CRT as a whole. I suspect that Clark's real objection is the basic tenet of CRT: that this nation was founded on and still revolves around white supremacy. I think that Clark denies that the nation is still based on white supremacy, as well as some other supremacies. The inclusion of other supremacies comes with the addition of Intersectionality.

In addition, CRT says that because of the current systemic racism that exists in this nation, we do have to review and even redefine some of our basic institutions.

Part of CRT is based on the works of Martin Luther King Jr. And here we should note that  King battled against a large white supremacist culture that, with the help of laws, enforced that white supremacy on this nation. Thus, racism wasn't only an individual sin, it was a corporate, societal sin. The response of color blindness forgets the disadvantages that systemic racism brought to many people of color. Thus color-blindness and meritocracy only furthered those disadvantages and inspired those who hold to hyperindividualism to continue to believe in white supremacy because they overlooked the disadvantages from which many people of color were performing with. Many liken all of that to a race where the starting line for those with privilege is significantly closer to the finish line than the starting line for those who have been marginalized. To then judge people based on when they cross the finish line might seem fair, but it is far from fair.

Thus, one has to question whether a person who opposes racism as an individual but does not oppose systemic or institutional racism is still adequately opposed to racism.

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

Oct 13

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that celebrates the removing of the Pulitzer Prize from and criticism of the 1619 Project. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The key problem with  the 1619 Project was not with facts but the interpretation of the facts. It employed all-or-nothing thinking by reducing the founding of America to the issue of slavery.

The conservative reaction to the 1619 Project by some religiously conservative Christians often employs the same type of thinking. And the reason for that is partial conflation of Christianity with American Patriotism. This is seen in their use of the parallel of America's founding fathers to America with the Apostles to the Church. And in doing so, they put America's founding fathers, and America itself, on too high a pedestal.

As for why the American Revolution was fought, there was no one single issue. That the British were interfering with the colonialists westward expansion that would take land from the Native Americans is certainly  one reason. Defense of slavery was another reason why some of our founding fathers sought independence from England. How the Sommerset case was reported, especially with how the judges words about how slavery was not consistent with English law was taken out of context. Thus,, many wrongly thought that his decision spelled the end of slavery in England and the colonies. So it is quite reasonable to see that continued belonging to the UK posed a threat to slavery and thus provided another, but not the only, reason why some of the founding fathers, many of whom were slave owners, wanted to break away from England.

Of course those two reasons alone break the idealistic parallel that many religiously conservative American Christians want to maintain between the role that our nation's founding fathers played with the creation of American and the Apostles' role in establishing the Church.