Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 22, 2021

Dec 14

To Stephen M. Klugewicz and his article about the nobility of conservative thinkers and how they sometimes fight for lost causes but often pessimistic because of the world around them. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog. 

According to the above article, conservative thinkers do not believe in utopias and theybelieve that the pursuit of them is dangerous. And yet, they seem to believe that they have a monopoly on what is true, good, and virtuous, which is a shared trait with those who attempt to build utopias.

According to the above article, conservative thinkers have everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them--a phraseology borrowed from Martin Luther King Jr. when he was talking about the West.

According to the above article, the conservative thinker thinks the same of himself in comparison with nonconservatives as the Pharisee thought of himself compared with the publican (see Luke 18:9-14).

Yes, conservatism has ideas to contribute to the well-being of mankind. But so do liberalism and leftist ideologies. We should note that none of those ideologies, along with any other ideologies not mentioned, are omniscient. And because of that, we all need to listen to those who hold to ideas and beliefs other than our own.

Finally, we should note that the person, conservative or nonconservative, who believes his own press is a sibling to the person who would act as his own lawyer.

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

Dec 15

To R. Scott Clark and Steve Dowling for Clark's quoting from Dowling's article that dissents from a PCA denominational hearing that decided to support the ordination of a Christian who is same sex attracted but does not act on that attraction and believes that he will always have that attraction. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Steve Dowling's article can be found at:

https://theaquilareport.com/dissenting-opinion-on-the-sjc-decision-in-the-missouri-presbytery-greg-johnson-case/

Why do my fellow religiously conservative Christians often resort to using pedophilia in comparisons with homosexuality? Why? Can't they see the differences between the two attractions or are they unintentionally using hyperbole to demean homosexuality?

We should note something from the NT, it is grossly significant sins that makes one's Christian faith questionable. Not all of those grossly significant sins include actions, but many do. We should note something else about homosexuality in the NT, though it is a grossly significant sin, there are sins, even sexual sins, that are worse. For example, a man having sexual relations with his father's wife, see I Cor 5, is a sin not even tolerated by pagans--which is unbelievers, not the motorcycle gang,  Meanwhile, an honest reading of Romans 1:18ff tells us that, though against nature, homosexuality among unbelievers should not surprise us. 

So what about those who are SSA compared with those who struggle with lusting after people of the opposite sex? What do we, people who are attracted to the opposite sex, really know about being SSA that we can render a fair judgment on those who are SSA? And are we going to be consistent with how we judge and respond to those who share our own sexual sins? If a Christian no longer acts on SSA, then doesn't their life demonstrate and aren't they acknowledging  an ongoing sanctification? If a Christian is no longer looking at porn, does their life not demonstrate and are they not acknowledging an ongoing sanctification? Even when a Christian acknowledges that a desire they have is sinful, that Christian can very well be demonstrating and acknowledging an ongoing sanctification.

Fear in Dowling's dissenting article I sense. And as we all know from intergalactic history, fear is the the path to the dark side. Fear is the path to becoming the Pharisee from the parable of the 2 men praying. Ok, maybe not the path, but it is a path all too often taken. I sense fear because Dowling's dissent is authoritarian in nature and authoritarianism is a fear driven response. It is the kind of fear that makes one reluctant to make distinctions, such as what we see in those with phobias. Here we should note that authoritarianism often employs black-white thinking and such thinking is strongly incapable of making distinctions. And from what I have read and understand about the situation, that seems to be the case here.

I have no problem with saying that a Christian who is applying/nominated for a church office who is also SSA needs closer scrutiny. They also may need more church resources in maintaining their resistance to their attraction. But having met Christians who are SSA and who are not acting on that attraction, we are making a horrible mistake when we automatically disqualify them from holding church offices because of the struggles they have. But worse than that, we are becoming more vulnerable to becoming the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying when we adamantly oppose their being accepted and recognized as church officers.

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

Dec 16

To W. Robert Godfrey and his adult Church School lessons on the passing of Christendom. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio blog.

Perhaps a reason that we are confused about the end of Christendom is because of how we see  our history. On the one hand, Godfrey says that there are exceptions to his generalities. On the other hand, Americans did not have to address anyone by calling them 'Lord.'

So I guess that how slaves had to address their masters is simply an exception to one of his generalities and thus what life was like for slaves was seen merely as an exception and thus was not covered by Godfrey's depiction of life in America. The same could be said for some free Blacks, Native Americans, and women. Not that any had to call anyone 'Lord,' but the independence and freedom Godfrey described in America back in its past was not often experienced by those group of people. Thus Godfrey is presenting a white male, Christian centric view of American history. And he is doing that because his description of life in America back then as monolithic.

However, I could agree with Godfrey's assessment that Americans don't appreciate history like they should. And it isn't just the kids who don't fully appreciate American history. After all, just look at how many adults condemn in total the 1619 Project and CRT and work to prohibit them from being taught in our schools today.

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

Dec 17

To R. Scott Clark and his article against using a 17th century doxology in singing praise to God. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Having taught I believe that the mere repetition of text does not always show that one has learned its meaning. It's not until people put that text in their own words that the extent that real learning has taken place. So why not sing both from the Psalms, or the other Scriptures, and the 17th century Doxology as well as hymns written by Christians? Why employ an exclusive-or logic here?

I find the exclusive singing of Psalms to be motivated out of fear rather than faith. The exclusive singing of the Psalms or any parts of the Scriptures acts as a fence that guards us from singing wrong words and concepts. But it also acts as camouflage that can hide our hymns and songs show an adequate understanding of the Scriptures. Besides, unless we sing in the original languages of the Scriptures, we are going to sing wrong words anyway. Yes it limits it, but it is still the case.

Exclusive singing of the Psalms or the Scriptures is an attempt to avoid making mistakes some of which could lead slippery slopes. But it is also an attempt at perfectionism. And, as mentioned before, it can easily hide our misunderstanding of the text. I find it ironic that some people who liken wokeness to seeking justification by works can be so strict and legalistic about not using musical instruments or hymns in worship. 

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 7, 2021

 April 6

To Bradley Birzer and his article on what Conservatism must to continue. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Where I see conservatism is that it is at the center of denial. That denial is a failure to recognize the system racism and the oppression of other groups and its own culpability in that oppression. And thus recognizing the dignity of individuals does little to address people's needs when their problems are not adequately recognized. In addition, conservatism is in denial of its own inadequacies and its need to learn from other ideologies.

But conservatism is not the only group in such denial. Liberalism and the Left are in the same kind of denial as conservatives are. There are circles from all of these ideologies that fail to recognize both their own weaknesses and failures as well as the contributions other ideologies can make. what distinguishes conservatism from the other ideological groups in their denial is that in America, conservatism is the most boisterous of all the ideologies.

Conservatism has become tribal and with that tribalism has come hubris and the assumption that conservatism had everything to teach and nothing to learn from other isms and ideologies. and thus all other approaches are seen as threats by conservatism. One only needs to listen to conservative talk media or conservative politicians or blog sites like this one to observe that hubris.

It would be unfair to not to mention the hubris that exists in liberal and leftist circles as well. And that hubris makes each group act as if collaboration with other ideological group as compromising, if not a betraying, one's principles. But again, those in conservatism seem to be the most boisterous of all ideological groups.

What we see to today on all sides is ideological tribalism where in each tribe outsiders are shunned if not demonized. Such tribalism is divisive. Such tribalism causes people to declare culture wars in a forever king-of-the-hill battle for survival.

So conservatism is basically not just following the path that other ideologies are pursuing, it is leading the way. And the only way for conservatism to change course is to emerge from its current state of denial and to escape tribalism. And to do that, conservatism has to admit that it doesn't have all the answers and that it could a few things from liberals and leftists.

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

To Stephen Klugewicz and his article that criticizes MLB for moving its All-Star game from Atlanta in protest against Georgia’s new election laws. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The above article shows nothing but contempt for those whose views oppose what Klugewicz believes. Broad assumptions are made of anyone who is woke--those who see and oppose systemic racism or promote equality for those in the LGBT community.

Does Klugewicz know how MLB made the decision to oppose Georgia's voting laws? Does Klugewicz understand the issues surrounding Georgia's election laws? What could be the goal of changing election laws when Trump appointed officials supported the fairness of the 2020 election? Does Klugewicz comment on the fact that Trump injected a conditional suspicion into the elections when he claimed during both the 2016 and 2020 campaigns that he could only lose if the election was rigged?

Does Klugewicz see systemic racism in our nation or is such a notion itself an insult to what he values?

The whole above article is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on wokeness without making any distinctions. Everyone who is woke to any degree is considered to only be self-serving and uninformed by Klugewicz. And it is  that kind of overgeneralized thinking and labeling of people that wokeness says is a major problem with this nation. Basically, in protesting wokeness, Klugewicz demonstrates the kind of thinking that bigotry is made of.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 17, 2021

March 15

To R. Scott Clark and his article that goes out of its way to state that homosexual desire, like homosexual behavior, is sin. This appeared in Heidelblog

I fully agree with Dr Clark that homosexual desire is sin. But, according to Jesus, so too is lusting for a woman outside of a heterosexual marriage. So the question becomes whether Clark is putting an extra burden on Christians who battle homosexual desires that he is not that he is not putting on those battling heterosexual sinful desires.

We should note that Clark is not shy in citing Ursinus in saying that those with homosexual desires should be punished by the Civil Magistrates. So how dare young people think that what Clark and others say about homosexuality is hateful.

Clark makes a big deal about homosexual desire is against nature. But when we realize that we see varying levels of homosexuality in around 1,500 species, we have to ask: Whose nature is it against?

And Clark also quotes part of I Cor 6:11 to refer to the Christians who were homosexual of Paul's day: 'such were some of you.' But that passage deals with a number of sins in addition to homosexuality including adultery. Is Clark saying that believers with homosexual desires but did not act on them are not Christians? What about the other sins in I Cor 6 that were listed with homosexuality? Adultery is one such sin. Does that mean that Christians don't struggle with adulterous desires?

While Clark questions whether students know what Paul said in I Cor 6:11, we might ask if Clark has read Romans 2:1ff. For after listing sins that were the result of unbelief, Paul starts Romans 2:1 off with a serious warning against judging others. Who are those others? Aren't they the people whose sins were highlighted in Romans 1? And while Clark, in one of his responses, indicates, if not implies, that since homosexuality violates God's moral and biological laws, that they are worse sinners than those who do not violate biological law, Romans 3:9 begs to differ:

What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin.

While Clark correctly says that homosexual students should be loved, again he cited Ursinus who said that those with such desires should be arrested. And he says that real Christians were such sinners. Clark needs to find other ways to state why homosexual desire is also sin without giving such mixed messages and putting burdens on homosexuals who would become Christians which he doesn't put on Christians who struggle with other sins.

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

March 16

To Stephen Klugewicz and his article on some of the principles used to write The Constitution. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

In giving accolades to the principles that drove the writing of The Constitution, Stephen Klugewicz fails to mention a more full context of the drafting of that document.  The impetus for the drafting of that document was Shays Rebellion. That rebellion moved Henry Knox to write a letter to George Washington telling him something needs to be done before the American experiment failed.

The context of the rebellion revolved around the farmers who had served as soldiers in the Revolutionary War and were never compensated as promised for their service. This contributed to their economic hardships. In addition, taxes were high and businesses in Boston started to change so that payment was expected at the time of sale. This was a change from farmers using the barter system to pay off debts. There was no paper currency at the time which people could use to make payment. In addition,  neither was there gold nor silver available to the farmers.

The term 'faction' was used more as a pejorative by America's new elite to describe those who were in need of some kind of relief so they could continue to survive economically. It was used by Henry Knox in his letter to George Washington and James Madison in Federalist #10, both of whom regarded the rebelling farmers as many today's conservatives regard BLM. What the faction wanted was a paper currency, the cancellation of debts, and an equal distribution of property. So on one hand, what the rebelling farmers wanted  what they thought was needed for them to survive. What the elites wanted was protection for their current status.

What we see with The Constitution is a consolidation of federal powers in order to be able to put down rebellions. In addition, that document was written to protect America's new elites from popular opinion, as Yates's notes on the Constitutional debates records Madison as saying:

Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

What is more telling is what Madison feared if elections were open to call classes in England:

The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be jsut, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation.

Innovation, of course would  include any changes to the current status quo.

One can also see the one of the main concerns in The Constitution when the references to the militia.

The short of all of this is is that  the writing of The Constitution was not driven by principles as much as described in the above article. A significant part The Constitution was written in order to preserve the status of America's elite at that time.

 

 

 

 

 

The Problem With Rescuing Heroes

We all have heroes. Heroes inspire, protect, and even rescue us. Often, our heroes are people; but nations and even ideologies can serve as heroes too. And we put these heroes on pedestals and, to differing degrees, treat them as gods. But the problem with doing so is that since our heroes are human or come from humans, they have "feet of clay" and thus, for each of our heroes, we must deal with cognitive dissonance when we are told about their faults. Our response to the dissonance can range from complete denial to a reluctant kicking away of a hero's pedestal to a bitter embrace of an anti-hero. In the end, our response to the news of their faults can very well reveal our own feet of clay as well.

And so we come to a blogpost from the blog, The Imaginative Conservative, written by Stephen Klugewicz entiled, Saving General Lee. The title of the post tells us quite a bit about the article. It tells us that General Lee, that is Robert E. Lee, is both endangered and worthy of being saved. He is a hero to many. And it appears that Klugewicz does a good job in pointing out Lee's feet of clay. So the question becomes, how does Klugewicz handle the dissonance?

It's not that Lee was without merits, he had more than a few. He was a military genius. He was a man of honor and duty and thus not only exhibited controlled behavior, he would be compelled to do some things which he preferred not to. Lee earned the respect of his contemporary opponents, such as General Ulysses S. Grant, as well as future presidents. He seemed to have treated his slaves whom he inherited more humanely than some of his peers and he denounced the institution of slavery. He had a high regard for humility, which he showed by his behavior, and a hatred for war. He was a man who believed in and worked for reconciliation and opposed continuing the Civil War by other means after his surrender.

So what is the threat to Lee here? It is that history might be changing its mind about him. Klugewicz notes that the attempts to erase his name from educational institutions is evidence to this. In addition, Klugewicz believes that Lee's name, like the Confederate flag is being perceived as a symbol of racism. Lee was a racist in that he believed Whites were superior to Blacks but, if this is any consolation, he exercised that belief in superiority through paternalism rather than outright dominance.

Why would History change its mind about Lee? The most obvious answer is that he was one of the major leaders in the Confederate Army. The second most obvious answer is that he defended slavery. Actually, according to Klugewicz, Lee's strong sense of loyalty to his own state was more motivating than defending slavery. However, Lee was a racist, though Klugewicz attributes this to Lee being a product "of his class and time." He believed that Blacks were inferior to Whites to the extent of supporting the idea of sending Blacks who became free out of the country.

What criticisms could we offer of Lee here? His racism was obviously wrong and attributing that to his environment doesn't help. For just as his loyalty to Virginia made him a reluctant rebel despite his problems with the Confederacy, so could a belief in equality open his eyes to the evils of racism and not just slavery. And we also have to question whether his loyalty to country, that is Virginia according to Lee, should be considered a weakness, not a strength. That is when one's actions are controlled more by loyalty to a group than loyalty to principle, a moral compromise is made. Such is the basic ethic behind tribalism and gang warfare.

But what is more interesting than the criticisms this blog can bring are some of Klugewicz's views expressed in his apologetic. Please note that he described Reconstruction as being a "bitter period" and how there was a restoration for the nation during the subsequent Spanish-American War when "White Protestant Americans again fought side-by-side against brown-skinned Catholics."

Jointly fighting another racial war, the first one being the Mexican-American War in which Lee distinguished himself, is called "national healing" by Klugewicz. Seriously?!!! And how both Reconstruction, just referenced, and the following Civil Rights movement, referred to in the next quote, were portrayed in the absence of any reference to Jim Crow is telling. It's as if the South's embracing of the "Lost Cause Myth" was only a superficial reaction to agitation.  For in response to the Civil Rights Movement, Klugewicz states that the South "clung anew to the Lost Cause Myth, making symbolic protest against desegregation of schools and voting rights for African Americans by incorporating the Confederate battle flag into state flags and by naming roads and schools after Confederate generals." 

The above, along with his view of the Civil War, should give Conservatives who agree with Klugewicz and follow his admiration for Lee reason for pause. For with what are they associating conservatism when they associate the above views and Lee with conservatism? One hopes that the above is more determined by a regionalism rather than conservatism. Otherwise, conservatism should be utterly abandoned for its compromise in morals and its blindness to its own faults. That blindness comes from maximizing personal traits of integrity while minimizing or even denying the suffering lavished on others which results from the other priorities of those who bear its name. 

Klugewicz should be praised for his honesty in describing Lee. It was refreshing. But there are some very disturbing views presented in his article as well. In particular is the view of how group loyalty is exalted above morals and principles which is ironic considering how conservatives value personal integrity. However, none of us has the luxury of playing the pharisee in Jesus's parable of the two men praying here. Each one of us has loyalties that infringe on our morals. Certainly, Klugewicz's compromises have been focussed on here, but he is not alone. He is joined by all. And the reason for pointing out his flaws here is in order to facilitate a productive change with the hopes that he could return the favor.