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.

Second Verse, Same As The First

For the past few centuries, Church History in the West has had many examples where the predominant branch of the Church in a given nation has sided with wealth and power.  Examples include the Roman Church's siding with wealth and power in France and Spain during their respective pre-revolutionary times as well as the Orthodox Church during the times leading up to the Russian Revolutions of 1917.

In the United States, the predominant part of the Church is the Protestant branch in general and white evangelicals in specific. They have show that support for wealth and power through their support for the Republican Party even though the reasons for their support center around the abortion debate and culture war issues. Still, of the two major political parties that first serve the interests of those with wealth and power, the Republican Party has demonstrated that it is far more willing to sacrifice the welfare of the American people while catering to perceived needs and even whims of Big Business.

Just recently, Reverend Stephen Spinnenweber (click here for a bio) wrote an article which was posted on the Reformation 21 website which not only gladly proclaimed that he is a one issue voter and that issue is abortion, but strongly encouraged other Christians to do the same (click here for the article).

On the one hand, I sympathize and even agree with Spinnenweber on his stand against abortion. After all, abortion takes a human life. Some attempt to minimize the significance of that by denying the personhood of the unborn. Personhood is used there to redirect the assignment of human life to those stages of the unborn which we can either directly interact with or more easily relate to or can perceive as being human life. And I understand his main reason why he is voting on a single issue. That reason is that some issues are weightier than other issues.\ Abortion is among the most important issues because each abortion ends a human life. Thus abortion is a dealbreaker for many in terms of voting for a candidate.

Where I struggle with Spinnenweber is his analysis of the situation. Now Spinnenweber also speaks of racism as being a dealbreaker regarding for whom we vote. He rightfully speaks against Jim Crow era and laws as being horrific. And he also includes policies that would deny any 'societal group' of rights recognized by The Constitution or their God-given  rights. However, because abortion is the murder of a child, he believes that it is an issue that stands above all other issues.

But is abortion the only issue in which human life is taken? The answer is no and I am not referring to capital punishment. For example, according to the AJPH, just in the year of 2000, the following estimates were made about America (click here for the reference):

• 245,000 deaths were attributable to low education
• 176,000 deaths were attributable to racial segregation
• 162,000 deaths were attributable to low social support
• 133,000 deaths were attributable to individual poverty
• 119,000 deaths were attributable to income inequality

The article from which those statistics come from was based on a review of literature. Also, couldn't we very well say that some of those same conditions that are contributing to premature deaths mentioned above also contributing to either infant mortality or the decision to get an abortion? So should a candidate's positions on those subjects become dealbreakers.

We could also add that scientists are estimating that between 2030 and 2050, we will see 250,000 around the world will die per year (click here for the reference) from the effects of climate change. So should a candidate's position on climate change become a dealbreaker? Of course, it isn't just climate change that should cause us to be concerned for the environment. Pollution also causes premature deaths. One study stated that 9 million people around the world prematurely died because of pollution in 2019 while another study claimed that 53,000 premature American deaths could have been prevented if 'all energy emitted emissions' were done away with (click here for the source).

In addition, if we want to talk about a candidate's positions on issues where premature death is involved, then shouldn't we also include a candidate's position on wars, military and other interventions, the selling of military arms, gun control laws, and nuclear weapons be dealbreakers in terms of the candidates we will vote for?

If we want to talk about racism being a dealbreaker, then shouldn't the denial of systemic racism, such as is fallibly described by CRT be a dealbreaker even though that systemic racism is not at the level it was during Jim Crow?

Also, if the denial of God-given or Constitutional rights is also a dealbreaker in terms of voting for a candidate, then should any candidate who favors a dictatorship in place of a democracy also be a dealbreaker? After all, the January 6th Hearings are revealing just how close we came to losing what we have left of democracy and falling into a dictatorship.

Narrowmindedness is not a good way to describe the single-issue voter. But reductionistic would be. And the problem with being unnecessarily reductionistic is that it leads to unnecessary black-white thinking. Not only can black-white thinking lead to authoritarianism, it requires that we ignore pertinent information. For example, Spinnenweber's emphasis on abortion would cause him to ignore a candidate's other positions that contribute to other causes of death and issues listed above which either an anti-elective abortion or a pro-choice candidates have. But if he does that, he becomes inconsistent because it was the premature causing of death which caused Spinnenweber to make abortion such an important issue.

All of that returns us to the beginning. To vote on the single issue of abortion, either intentionally or not, is to support the Republican Party and side with wealth and power for religiously conservative Christians who oppose the legalization of elective abortions. And thus one has to wonder because of a single-issue approach to voting we are seeing a repeat of history despite all the dealbreakers listed above which many Republican lawmakers support.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 23, 2022

 March 15

To R. Scott Clark and W. Robert Godfrey for Godfrey's article including the portion quoted in Clark's blog post. This appeared on Heidelblog.

Godfrey's full article is linked to below:

    https://outlook.reformedfellowship.net/sermons/disestablished/

Godfrey's article reminds me of two problems that I see within the conservative sector of any group. First, negative changes has them singing the Things Ain't What They Use To Be blues. Second, they rely to much on the past to understand and respond to the future. That last tendency is especially true during trying times.

My experiences with Reformed conservatives and Lutheran conservatives is that their subscription to standards written in the past causes a tribalism that splits the Church at large and their own movements in particular. The splitting of the Church is seen in a kind of snobbery toward those who don't hold to their standards. Those who hold to different standards are seen by these conservatives as 2nd class Christians, if they are considered to be Christians at all, who belong to the body of Christ. They are seen as having nothing to listen to or read from while in great need of the superior spiritual guidance of these very conservatives. But more than that, that tribalism often produces a hostility by one Christian toward another because the other Christian disagrees with something said in the treasured past. That hostility causes one person for whom Christ died to aggressively attack another person for whom Christ died. 

I asked a conservative Reformed theologian whether he thought that the OPC, the denomination I belong to, puts the Westminster Standards on too high a pedestal--putting standards on too high a pedestal is a major cause for theological tribalism.  This person responded by saying that no matter where you go, you have a certain set of standards that are being subscribed to. So I asked if that person then thought whether tribalism was a fixed cost to holding a certain set of standards. That person declined to answer.

Yes, there are times for Reformed conservatives and Lutheran conservatives to teach their standards and continue to check them. But the majority of times we should be working with Christians who hold to different standards than our own or who are not even confessionalists to collaborate together to preach and teach the Gospel. That means that we have to check our standards based tribalism at the door and realize that we have as much to learn from others as they have to learn from us.

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

March 16

To Stephen Spinnenweber and his article, which is part 3 in what appears to be a series, that tries to show an outright rejection of Side B Christianity, which is Christians who struggle with being same sex attracted but remain celibate and its proclamation that sexual orientation is fixed, is real Biblical caring for such Christians. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The problem on the conservative side, represented by Spinnenweber, is that we really don't know all of the causes of same-sex attraction? Are there genetic predispositions involved? Are there physical environmental factors at play here? For example, if because of the fact that the current water filtration systems we have do not extract hormones used in medicines, is that affecting our sexual orientation and/or identity? What interpersonal factors that are the result of one's family environment which are affecting our orientation and/or identity? And how long in life are those factors contributing to who we are?

My observation is that traditionalists, regardless of the source of the tradition, and old people tend to rely too heavily on the past to interpret and respond to the present. So the Westminster Standards, though having something to say here, are by themselves inadequate to address this problem. In fact, reliance on them to help provide an answer here should very limited. After all, those standards were written in a different time and context and thus have their own chronological trappings. The same applies to applying eschatology, such as over or under realized eschatology, in terms of what we can expect in each case. The same applies to citing examples of Christians who have overcome same sex attraction. Not everyone who suffers from this is experiencing the same set of factors at the same degree.

If we all have besetting sins, which might be a wholly inadequate way to describe this problem, why are conservatives singling out same sex attraction as one that will be changed by saying God can do anything? After all, don't we say that God can do anything when praying for a person who is seriously ill but are not surprised when that person continues to be ill or succumbs to that illness? Yes, God can do anything? But some who struggle with same sex attraction might not ever rid themselves of that attraction just as each of us may never rid ourselves of our besetting sins.

Considering how we don't have a definitive answer for all of the causes of  same sex attraction, especially since homosexuality is very prevalent in the animal kingdom, I don't see how the above approach can be one that either is caring or helps some with this attraction to change. In addition, what is taken for granted are the changes already made by many Christians with this attraction. Thus, we don't understand the degree of struggle that many Christians who are same sex attracted experience and accomplish just by remaining celibate.

So just perhaps it is time for both those who agree with Johnson and conservatives like Spinnenweber to go back to the drawing board regarding this issue.

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

March 20

To Viktor Orbán, the Prime Minister of Hungary and his article on Hungary's response to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There is some Trumpism in the above article: the scapegoating of the left (should note that Hungary's left is different from America's left), a nation first perspective, and block immigration mentality. I forgot one other Trumpism: national self-flattery, but that is a common trait of many nations.

The overall theme of the note seems to echo the words of an old Simon and Garfunkel song: 'I am a rock I am an island.' And of course, isolationism is the Word of any nation that focuses so much on itself. 

But history teaches the world's nations to beware of imperialism, being a policeman, and isolationism. That makes the decision of what to do when there is a significant injustice, like an invasion, that is occurring elsewhere, especially in a neighboring country.

Certainly the European theater of WW II tells us what happens when one ignores a threat until that threat is knocking on one's own door. If we apply the Principle of Universality to Orbán's response to the invasion of the Ukraine, then Orbán should be fine with the world ignoring any coming Russian invasion of Hungary. Then again, maybe Orbán has faith that Putin wouldn't invade his nation. After all, they both belong to very conservative churches and so Putin wouldn't have to feel threatened by Hungary as he appears to feel threatened by the decadent West. Then again, turning a blind eye to Putin's faults is another Trumpism.

Though the decision for Hungary to get involved  in Russia's war on the Ukraine is a complicated one, the basic tone of the above article is disturbing. For it says that one's only job is to become strong so others won't pick on one's nation while ignoring the injustices that surround them. Such an approach doesn't seem to reflect what the Scriptures say which should matter Orbán belongs to a religiously conservative Christian Church.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 23, 2022

 Feb 17

To W. Robert Godfrey and his adult church class on the fall of Christendom. This particular session focused on Karl Marx. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio website. 

One could approach Godfrey's from two different perspectives here. One perspective would be to ask Godfrey the same question about Christendom that he asks about Marxism. That question is, did Christendom provide what it promised or expected to produce? It's certainly a fair question to ask of Marxism, but why not ask the same question of Christendom since the basic theme of Godfrey's series here is the fall of Christendom.

The second perspective to take when looking at Godfrey's content in this lesson is a more critical one. That is because it seems that Godfrey knows enough generalities about or commonly perceived conservative views of Marxism and CRT, the latter of which he tossed  in there, to oversimplify both systems of beliefs. And it is in that oversimplification that Godfrey makes some significant errors when talking about both.

Regarding Marxism, is Godfrey aware of one of the major splits between Marxists? That split would somewhat part company with Lenin and fully part company with Stalin over whether they ruled as Marxists. Among those who lean more toward Trotsky is the belief that Lenin, though a Marxist, never ruled Russia as a Marxist. This was pointed out by a fellow socialist contemporary of Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg. Other Marxists also parted ways with Lenin and in how he ruled Russia. Lenin points this out when he openly insults leftist Marxists in Russia. Luxemburg's point was that Lenin ruled Russia not as a Marxist, but as a member of the bourgeoisie in how they would run their business. Luxemburg point that Lenin was not promoting or installing the proletariat dictatorship, which was partial democracy based producing the class rule of the proletariat. We should also note that Lenin was never a member of the proletariat just as Trotsky never was. And Stalin's work history did not really qualify him to represent the proletariat. But we should note that Stalin was once a seminary student

Around the time of the October, 1917 Russian Revolution, there were a number of Marxist political parties. But that revolution brought about a tyrannical rule by the Bolsheviks who prohibited the other Marxist groups from having any pull. After securing power came the purges of socialists as well as the revolt by the Kronstadt sailors. That alone tells us that neither Lenin nor Stalin had a monopoly on representing Marxism. And yet, they are two of the major faces of Marxism in the West while the others are ignored.

Currently, the nation that comes closest to practicing Marxism is Germany. And that is the case because of Germany's codetermination laws. For the foundational point of Marxism is the redistribution of power from the bourgeoisie to the working class so the proletariat could free itself from the rule of the bourgeoisie. And though Germany's codetermination laws deliberately fall very short of any kind of proletariat dictatorship, those laws do enable a significant redistribution of power to workers.

Godfrey's treatment of CRT is much worse than his treatment of Marxism. For Godfrey effectively reduces CRT to Marxism with the oppressed and oppressors. Such a reductionism ignores the similarities and differences between CRT and Critical Legal Studies, the latter of which is the approach to racism from which CRT emerges. Even more than that, much of CRT consists of a continuation of the  works and teachings of the Civil Rights Movement. Here we should note that CRT strongly opposes the conservative approach to Civil Rights which, based on Reagan's approach to racism when he was the President, relies on a colorblind approach to racism. However, the implication of Godfrey's calling CRT Marxist is that it is safe for us religiously conservative Christians to throw all of CRT's similarities to Critical Legal Studies and the Civil Rights Movement out the window.

In the end, the combination of Godfrey's overly simplistic statements on Marxism and CRT are disappointing because of Godfrey's scholarly reputation. 

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

On or After Feb 17

To Patrick M. Garry and his article that defends traditional conservatives from the claims made against it by national conservatives. While the former group stresses individual liberty more than the latter group does, the latter group emphasizes the need to pay more attention to the Common Good by the government. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

What is unfortunate in the above article is the laudative and pejorative use of labels. Such uses give evidence of an authoritarian approach that employs a begging the question logic. For example, the term 'conservative' is an example of a laudative use of a label while 'wokism' is an example of a pejorative use.

What is unclear is why there exists a conservative intent on limiting democracy, especially among the traditional conservatives. That intent is expressed both explicitly and implicitly in the above article. Perhaps the reason for limiting democracy is one that was shared by James Madison when he spoke the following during the Constitutional debate as recorded in Yates's notes (see  https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp   ):

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. 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. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered.

So how altruistic was Madison's concern about limiting the power of democracy?

We should note that the national conservatives have a point about The Constitution and the common good. The was an expressed concern about creating a government that would last for a long time during the Constitutional Convention and in the beginning of The Constitution, comes the following phrase:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Insuring 'domestic Tranquility' and promoting the 'general Welfare' are explicit terms expressing some of the concerns of the participants in the writing of <i>The Constitution</i>.

Another weakness of the above article is an inadequate description of the context of the events mentioned. Those events include the the writing of The Constitution, the 1960s, and today's 'wokism.' What is especially missing from the contexts of those events are the sufferings of certain groups of people. 

For example, what triggered the writing of The Constitution were Shays Rebellion and the widespread  dissent due to the troubled, and what seemed to many to be the unfair, economic troubles of that time. In the 1960s, we saw a far greater systemic racism demonstrated than seen today in the Jim Crow South and in the discrimination heavy real estate and banking practices in the North along with a military draft that gave economic-based privileges, a higher degree of poverty than seen today an immoral Vietnam War for which both major political parties were responsible, second class citizenry for women, and discrimination against and criminalization of homosexuals. The context of today's corporate 'wokeism' has to do with establishing a more consistent equality for those in the LGBT community. Why were the sufferings of these different groups left out of the article when mentioning the times in which The Constitution was written, or when progressives looked to reform society in the 1960s, or with today's corporate wokeism.

The writer of the article is correct in saying that traditional conservatism is not libertarianism. But so what? Traditional conservatism is closer to and has more in common with libertarianism that the national conservatism described above or progressivism. And hasn't at least some of the abuses people have suffered from corporations been at least partially due to the privileges which the traditional conservative approach have granted to the corporate world?

Finally, we should note that because our ideologies are created by us, by people, that no ideology created by people is omniscient. And thus we should feel free to borrow from multiple ideologies  including those outside of conservatism, let alone from different conservative ideologies. The refusal to do so suggests the belief that one's own ideology is omniscient.

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

Feb 21

To R. Scott Clark and Carl Trueman for Clark's blogpost that quotes part of Trueman's article that heavily criticizes Biden for an appointment of a gay man to a government position. Clark's quotation in posted in Heidelblog while Trueman's article appeared in World Magazine.

The link to Trueman's article is below:

    https://wng.org/opinions/decadence-on-display-1645449344

What is Trueman's beef here, that someone from the LGBT community was appointed to a government job? That such appointments might promote equality for the LGBT community? Does Trueman want society to demand that our government prohibit government appointed jobs to the LBGT community?

And while picking on #NeverTrumpers, does Trueman give the alternative outcome that would result from reelecting Trump? Didn't Jan 6 tell us what we could have expected from the reelection of Trump? After all, look at the, talking about, extremes that Trump and is group went to try to steal the election that they falsely claimed was stolen from them.

Being a leftist, I knew what to expect from a liberal Biden. He, like Trump, is an authoritarian. Only Biden's authoritarianism is in the form of having a hero complex. Whatever rudeness one might see in Biden has been far surpassed by Trump. 

Finally, doesn't Romans 1 describe homosexuality in the unbeliever in a way that says we should not be shocked by such behaviors? And yet Trueman is because of his hypersensitivity over sexual issues. Does Trueman want society to marginalize those in LGBT community? If so, he is overlooking the narcissistic authoritarianism of Trump and the violence promoted by Trump's camp.  Does that mean that Trueman is more tolerant of violence than of homosexuality?

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

Feb 22

To Stephen Spinnenweber and his blog article on how those who oppose Greg Johnson's position that those who are SSA but do not act on it should be able to hold offices in the Church. Johnson also includes the idea that those opposing his position do not care about Christians who struggle with being SSA. This appeared in Heidelblog.

There are a number of issues that need to be addressed here. First, I get the idea that the concept behind the word 'attracted' is not the same for the two parties involved here. While one talks about a general attractiveness of a person, the other includes feelings of wanting or lust. With the former, unless one struggles withhomophobia, we freely notice people from either sex whom we regard as being attractive. 

Second, we seem to overlook 2 things about Romans 1 and its statements about homosexuality. First, that homosexuality should not surprise us in the unbeliever because the unbeliever has traded his worship of the Creator for his worship of the creature. Second, Romans 1 is followed by Romans 2:1ff. And there, after discussing homosexuality and listing other sins with it, including gossiping and being disobedient to parents, Romans 2 starts off with a stern warning for those who believe in God: do not judge those mentioned in Romans 1 because you too are guilty. If we are not guilty of having identical sins as the unbeliever, we are guilty of sins that at least live in the same neighborhood as the sins of the unbeliever. Here, it might be helpful to compare and contrast the prayers of the Pharisee and the tax collector from the parable of the two men praying (Luke 18:9-14). Note that it is the very religious person who thanks God that he is not just like other people, including the tax collector. In addition, it might be useful here to compare and contrast how Paul describes homosexuality in Romans 1 with the sexual sin Paul has to deal with in I Corinthians 5. For where as homosexuality is described as something not to be surprising in the unbeliever even though it is against nature as God designed it, having relations with one's father's wife goes beyond the pale of what is known among the Gentiles.

What Spinnenweber wants us to notice and focus on here is the distinction between those sins that are according to nature and those that are not. And thus a necessary hierarchy is introduced here, but it is one that can be misapplied. After all, Paul states in I Corinthians 6 that the sexually immoral from both the SSA and those who are attracted to the opposite sex are said no be disqualified from inheriting the Kingdom of God. And, again, we should note the prayers prayed from the parable of the two men praying.

Another thing we should note that seems to escape the notice of both those who believe that it is ok to be SSA as long as one doesn't act on it and those who oppose what Johnson is advocating for: nature is fallen. It fell with Adam's sin. And so while Paul's says what he says about homosexuality being against nature, it is against nature as God designed it, it may not be against what fallen nature is telling someone on the inside. BTW, if we don't think nature has fallen from its original design, then how do we explain homosexuality in around 1,500 species of animals in which there are benefits produced by the homosexuality practiced in some of those species?

Also, does our identity in Christ preclude other identities? According to Spinnenweber it does if those other identities are sinful. But how many such benign identities, such as national or ethnic identities, that are the cause of personal pride and thus division in the Church, fly in under the radar that Spinnenweber is using? In addition, does our new identity in Christ preclude our identity of being a sinner like the tax collector from the parable of the two men praying.

If people like Spinnenweber do care about Christians who struggle with being SSA, then they have an odd, or perhaps inconsistent, way of showing it. For Spinnenweber et. al. look down on such fellow believers for whom Christ died. They neglect to notice that perhaps fellow believers who struggle with being SSA have an even greater battle against the fallen nature of the flesh than themselves whose attraction is according to the design of nature. And they seem oblivious to the at times horrendously harsh struggle that homosexuals have had in society.