Why Is There Deconstruction Of The Christian Faith?

 Deconstruction is the rage in some intellectual circles and the word itself has several definition. The definition that will be used in this article deals with the tipping of some sacred cows. That is deconstruction is critical approach used to try to upend or disprove traditions and traditional ways of thinking (click here and see the popular usage of the word). Here we should note that tradition and traditional ways of thinking can be relative to one's location and one's ideological circles.

Joshua Ryan Butler (click here for a bio) has written an accessible pop assessment of the deconstruction of the Christian Faith for the Gospel Coalition website. That is we are talking about efforts to disprove and/or discredit the Christian faith. In that article, Butler lists 4 causes for attempts to disprove the Christian faith. And unfortunately, he missed the most important 5th cause for those efforts: Church history (click here for the article ).

The first cause for deconstruction is somewhat related to the 5th cause. The first cause is the pain that comes from being disillusioned by those leaders in the Church whose behavior eventually revealed that they may not have been real Christians. Butler gives some examples but it isn't important to display them here. The point is that some Christians have been deeply hurt by the double lives or abusive ways of treating others by those whom were trusted Christian leaders.

The second efforts to deconstruct the Christian Faith is because of poor teaching. Like the first cause, this cause might be related to the fifth cause. That cause is poor teaching in the Church. One example that Butler provides deals with a proper understanding of Genesis 1 in the light of science. Another example is the teaching that God takes pleasure in taking revenge on those who displease Him. For how can the Christian Faith be true when it serves that kind of god?

The third cause for  attempts to deconstruct the Christian Faith has to do with the sinful desires those who are either doing the deconstruction or believing  the deconstructive work of others. It is that they are looking for the freedom to sin. So because of  their lusts and so forth, they are looking for an excuse to see the Christian Faith as false.

The final cause that Butler lists for attempts to deconstruct the Christian Faith is that it is popular to do try to disprove Christianity in too much of America and today's world. According to Butler, that is why we are seeing an increase in testimonies of those who have fallen away from the faith.

In reality, Butler misses one of the major causes for attempts to deconstruct the Christian Faith. As stated before, that cause is Church History. This cause is related to the first cause except that the range of the people involved in disillusioning or abusing people is much wider. For while the first cause involves those who professed to be Christians but whose actions put such a profession in doubt, Church history provides many examples of disillusionment or abuse caused by Christian leaders who are looked at as pillars of the faith. Here we could include both Martin Luther and John Calvin as they abusively responded to those who disagreed on theological points and who either sorely persecuted or called such persecution of certain groups outside the Church. But we see further examples in the American Church in the well-respected persons of George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, J. Gresham Machen, and even a bit in Billy Graham. All had questionable views or practices with regard to race with some having far more questionable views or practices than others.

In addition, we have the Church's sometimes brutal anti-semitism, the religious wars, their other disputes with science, and eventually belief in white supremacy by many true believers coming out of Europe. That belief in white supremacy was exhibited in Europe's colonialism, imperialism, embracing of slavery, and embracing of segregation such as in Jim Crow. Church History has significantly contributed to Post Modernism with its rejection of the metanarrative of Pre Modernism: interpreting the world through faith.

As mentioned before, a contributing factor to attempts to deconstruct the Christian are the large number of abuses that are in Church History. We could add to that the number of examples of significant parts of the Church siding with wealth and power. Such examples were seen in the pre-revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain. They are being seen here in America with the kind of support that my fellow Evangelicals are giving to political leaders who support an economic system that has caused a decades long increase in wealth disparity and a disregard for Climate Change as exhibited in their support for cutting environmental regulations. And then there is the evangelical support for America's military ventures in the name of patriotism.

Butler's list for causes for attempts at deconstructing Christianity has huge blind spot when it comes to the many examples in Church History where legitimate Christian leaders have supported some real horrible practices and even atrocities. And though we should agree with him regarding the truth of Christianity, we must be more honest regarding the failures of many of our Christian heroes and the Church in general as being a cause of attempts to deconstruct the Christian Faith.

Have Conservative Christians Ever Understood Democracy?

In an article meant to dissuade Christians from seeing Theonomy as a cure from what ails a more secular America, Andrew Walker (click here for a bio), from The Gospel Coalition, presents a similar cure that Theonomy does in a recent article on the Gospel Coalition website (click here).

Why would Christians consider Theonomy today? It is because of the spiritual state of the nation, according to Walker. The nation is becoming more secular and is rejecting more and more of God's laws. Some see this increasing secularization as a culture war that Christians are losing. So to bring the nation back to God, Walker is afraid that Christians would look to Theonomy to solve the problem.

What is Theonomy? It is a Christian perspective on the Church-state relationship where the laws of a nation become the laws of God as expressed in the civil laws from the five Books of Moses. Theonomy would then stop perils that the further secularization of America would bring.

Walker provides some background information on Theonomy including  the definition, how it is different from Christian Reconstructionism, its tendency to adopt Postmillenialism, and key figures in the Theonomy movement. Walker also provides reasons why Theonomy should not be even tried by Christians in response to America's spiritual decline.

Why should Christians reject Theonomy? The first reason Walker gives is that Theonomy misrepresents what the Scriptures are saying to us today. It misrepresents the Scriptures because of its eschatology, which is the study of the end times. Theonomy teaches an eschatology of 'triumph' causing it to make errors in its analysis of the relationship between the Church and the state. Because of the emphasis on triumph, the state and Church are merged enough so that sin is contained by the religious civil laws. Walker notes that Theonomy fails to recognize the limited time period for those civil laws. For those laws were only  in force for the nation of Israel while it enjoyed its unique position of being God's covenant people. That time period has ended.

Theonomy's error is the belief that those civil laws from Moses were also meant to be a model for all other nations to follow. It also wrongly measures the Church's faithfulness by a given society's following of those civil laws. And while Walker acknowledges Theonomy's criticisms of the rejection of God's standards by society, its solution is one that tries too hard in responding to that rejection.

Walker is right in noting that it is unrealistic for any society to reach Theonomy's standards. It is basically to dream the impossible dream. So in contrast to the standards used by Theonomy, Walker suggests that we use the Noahic covenant as a better model of thought in terms of what to expect from the nations. That model of thought is based on what reason and nature can tell us, according to Walker.

Walker then describes the dilemma that he believes the modern Christian faces. On the one hand, no state can long survive when it flaunts God's laws. On the other hand, the New Testament does not provide detailed guidance on how the state should exist.

The substitute for Theonomy that Walker suggests is to use natural law as a guide for the laws of a nation. Such tells us that things like 'murder' and 'bestiality' should not be allowed.

Walker adds to the end of the article what we should be aiming at. We should be trying to disciple nations to 'glorify Christ' and to obey God in 'every domain.' A just government, according to Walker, is a result of nations following natural law. Thus, Walker's article is not there to argue about the goals of Theonomy as much as to say it is the wrong method to use in achieving any Christian notion of justice and what a nation should be.

We should note that in the middle of his article, Walker stresses the need for freedom of religion, but his notion is a limited freedom at best. And it is at this point we should note that Walker shows how many religiously conservative Christians do not understand what Democracy is about. Such a statement would probably surprise and confuse many such Christians. And that might be because they, and here I am specifically referring to American Christians, have reduced Democracy to the set of political processes by which we choose our representatives. Ironically, these same Christians would not view nations like Iran or Venezuela as being democracies even though they too have elections.

We should note that Democracy can also be a state of being measured by how the state and society is shared by the different groups within it. And this is where Walker's replacement for Theonomy fails. For in replacing natural law for Theonomy, we are still talking about having a Christian view of natural law and thus Christianity having some degree of supremacy in society and the culture. That means that though we wouldn't dominate society and culture like we would under Theonomy, the state would belong to us Christians more than it would belong to some others if we succeeded. And if we did succeed, then despite our democratic processes, we would not be a democracy. This is what many American conservative Christians don't understand about Democracy.

Now Walker acknowledges that we might not be able to have any place of supremacy over society and culture with natural law. He states that we must then be satisfied with just being able to speak prophetically to our nation. So where is the harm with following his suggestion? The harm is found in that by substituting natural law for Theonomy, we Christians are still trying to gain a privileged place in society. That is because in doing so, we would be promoting our own view of natural law and thus would be seeking the marginalization of those who disagree, and live that disagreement.

There is another problem with using natural law to control society, there is no uniform view of what natural law says. To give an example here, Christians would, and have already, used natural law arguments block the legalization of same-sex marriage without which there can be no full equality for the LGBT community in society. But, again, that is a Christian view of natural law. We find approximately 1,500 species of animals in which homosexuality is practiced and with beneficial effects for some of them. So if we look to nature to understand natural law, we see an acceptance of homosexuality. But the Christian view of natural law, which I believe is correct, would prohibit homosexuality in society, which I disagree with, if it could. So whose version of natural law should be used to act as a guideline for our nation's laws?

In the beginning of the article, Walker alludes to the current culture war that Christianity is losing. Most of the time, the defeat of Christianity in this culture war was marked by the legalization of same-sex marriage facilitated by the Obergefell decision. But there is only a culture war when one side decides that it wants to conquer the other side. So the question for Christians is this: Where does the New Testament tell us to fight such a war? The answer is in the book of Utopia--with the understanding that Utopia is defined as an imaginary place.

 

Is Choosing Between Christianity And Social Justice A False Dichotomy

 I happen to have two leanings that some find to be paradoxical if not contradictory: Reformed Theology and Marxism. To say that I lean to either one includes the idea that I have both agreements and disagreements with each ideology--counting theology as a religious ideology. I am use to those unbelievers who share my political and activist leanings thinking that to get Christians to become allies in social justice movements, they must first be deconverted and I have argued against such an belief (click here for an article).

Thaddeous Williams (click here for a very brief bio) of Biola University argues against the same point but to a different audience (click here for the article). Whereas I was addressing my fellow activists and those who held to a political ideology that was roughly similar to mine, Williams is addressing my fellow Christians who are considering leaving the Church because of the disparity between their concern for social justice and that of the churches they belong to.

In his article, Williams makes a distinction between two social justice camps: Social Justice A and Social Justice B. The former one is a view of social justice based on what God says while the latter one is not. Williams is worried that some Christians will leave the faith because of their dissatisfaction with the Church to head to the Social Justice B camp. He strongly disapproves of that camp because of its views on Christianity. He would rather have these disgruntled Christians join the Social Justice A group and thus remain in the Church though they might have to change their individual church membership.

Williams wants Christians who are considering leaving the Church because of what the Social Justice B groups says about Christianity to consider 5 questions. Those questions are listed below and will along with my attempt to represent how Williams's commentary on those questions along with my own responses.

1. As I seek social justice, have I distinguished a breakup from a breakthrough?
   
   Williams wants disgruntled Christians to consider that their dissatisfaction with their church's lack of stance on social justice issues as a sign that they have broken through their church's barriers to working for social justice. He characterizes all such churches to be neo-gnostic or, as Francis Schaeffer called them, 'super spiritual.' And right there we have a problem with social justice.
   
   After all, social justice includes battling against all kinds of prejudices. And to describe those Christians who disagree with us on social justice as a monolithic group is at the heart of prejudice. For myself, my own church is terribly deficient in addressing social justice issues. But for me to respond to that lack in the same way that Williams does not only promotes bigotry, it also  strongly indicates that I believe myself to be a better Christian than those who don't share my views on social justice. In Biblical terms using the parable of the two men praying (see Luke 18:9-14), Williams is telling these Christians to think of themselves as the Pharisee from that parable and to think of those neo-gnostic Christians as the tax collector about whom the Pharisee thanked God that he was not like him.
   
   Sure, I believe that my views on social justice are better and more biblical than that of the leadership of my own church. But my Christian faith can't be reduced to my views on social justice. And where I might be stronger on social justice than many, but not all, in my church, I have many faults where they have strengths. In addition, it isn't the person who bragged about his spiritual superiority who was justified before God in that parable, it was the person who could only ask for mercy because he was too aware of his own sins who received mercy.
   
   
2. As I seek social justice, am I breaking from a one-sided stereotype of Christianity?
   
   Here, Williams is asking social justice conscious Christians if they are breaking the mold of what Social Justice B people say about Christianity. To do this, while acknowledging some major sins committed by Christians in the past, he painted a picture of Christians as leading the charge in social justice. He said that it was Christians who rescued unwanted babies in the Roman Empire. It was Christians who founded the more hospitals and orphanages than any other group. It was Christians who started major universities, drove up literacy rates and led the way in abolishing slavery in the UK, US, India and other places in the world.
   
   But in listing those accomplishments by Christians, Williams forgets to mention that Western Civilization was dominated by Christianity and so some of those accomplishments are due to that place of supremacy that Christianity had. But with its place in supremacy in Western Civilization, came religious wars, harsh anti-semitism, imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy. In addition, yes, some Christians opposed slavery but some other Christians not only supported slavery, they also supported Jim Crow and white supremacy.
   
   Also, Christianity has had its intellectual struggles with science over heliocentrism, verified parts of evolution, and climate change. And in teaching people from other continents how to read in English, French, and German, Christians were, in part, replacing the cultures of many indigenous people with a European culture.
   
   
3. As I seek social justice, am I taking the deconversion stories of other Christians seriously?
   
   Williams addresses this question by citing Monique Duson who had been battling evil systems. Then she came to realize that while she was battling evil systems, she was forgetting about the evil in her own heart.
   
   I've seen many protesters who are very angry and self-righteously indignant against evil systems and elites. And the way Williams answers this question is very biblical and needed. On the other hand, we should be reluctant to think that all unbelievers are unaware of their own faults or who are protesting out of hate and anger. The true Christian faith is about Jesus's followers who recognize their own sinfulness and are told to forgive others as they have been forgiven. That is what Jesus taught as well such as in His parable of the man who was forgiven a great debt but could not forgive a person who owed him a small debt (Matthew 18:21-36).
   
   We could also include the previously mentioned parable of the 2 men praying and ask ourselves whether we want to protest against the injustices of the world as the Pharisee prayed or having the same mind as the tax collector had who begged God for mercy.
   
   But we should note here that quite often, long standing social injustices are initially corrected with a phobic mindset so that everything that could be merely associated with a given injustice is lumped together with those factors that  contributed to a given injustice. That is because there is a fear that we can't distinguish between the two. This kind of thinking also produces the anger and self-righteousness that Williams mentions in his question.
   
   
4. As I seek social justice, am I replacing the fruit of the Spirit with resentment, self-righteousness, and rage?
   
   Here, Williams has a legitimate concern. And that concern is addressed by the parables mentioned in the commentary on the previous question.
   
   
5. As I seek social justice, am I heeding the grandfatherly wisdom of John Perkins?
   
   What did Perkins teach? Perkins taught that to pursue justice, one must start with God. He also said that we can't pursue justice if we replace the Gospel with a human agenda.
   
   These are disturbing points because they seem to imply that only Christians can promote social justice. And thus, Christians must take the lead in promoting social justice because unbelievers cannot promote social justice because of their unbelief. Thus, there is no working with unbelievers as equals when pursuing social justice.
   
   Williams makes a similar point when citing Abraham Kuyper. It was Kuyper who said that 'every square inch of human experience' is under the lordship of Christ. But how does that work in nation and society in which there is religious freedom. What does that imply for all Christians who live in a multi-religious nation and society?
   
   Though there are problems with some of the other things Williams has said, it is his answer to the last question that is disturbing. Shouldn't the work for social justice be a collaborative effort between Christians and non-Christians as equal partners. And if we take Perkins's statements seriously, what we should consider social justice to be for those in the LGBT community?
   
   Overall, Williams's article is lacking. It does make a some good points and express some legitimate concerns. But the overall tenor of the article strongly suggests, if not implies, a Christian place of supremacy in both working for social justice and in society in general. And history teaches us that that is not a good idea
   
   
   
   
   

The Politics Of A Black Or White Christianity

This is a review of the second of three articles written by Thabiti Anyabwile on social justice (click here for the article). This article addresses social justice from perspective of two different political views. The one view is from the view of those who are privileged because of their race in America while the other is written from the view of those who have historically been extremely marginalized for the same reason in America.

Anyabwile's point here is that one's position  in America determines one's politics more than one's theology. That the difference between white and black Christianity has more to do with the difference in their politics than theology. And behind those politics are the social ethics that support our reaction to our situation. And this leaves the Church divided.

Anyabwile describes the political views of many whites as revolving around individual responsibility and what one can achieve for oneself. And I know from a past discussion that this view can be defended tenaciously because, in the end, it either supports or challenges one's self image. On the other hand, the political views of blacks embrace and promote political views that will help them escape the effects that past, and even present, race-based marginalization has on them.

Regarding the political views of whites, I remember hearing a debate between two people. One person was a white person who had pulled themselves up by their own boot straps to escape poverty and become successful. The other person, who was also white, challenged the notion that that one was the self-made success they claimed to be by pointing out that privileges the other person by virtue of their race. Of course that challenge flew in the face of the first person's pride and joy in knowing what they had achieved. And thus that person was angry at the claim that privilege was part of their success.

On the other hand, I've heard white Christians blame blacks for their less frequent success stories. Such blame again challenges  blacks who lacked the advantages afforded by privilege given to white and thus may not have achieved as much for themselves as others have. Thus the challenge served as an indictment because black Christians have had fewer success stories than their white brothers and sisters have had.

Of course the real issue for blacks is that those challenges present is that they are not to expect the necessary political help from most white Christians that would allow them to escape marginalization. How tragically ironic it is that they could better expect such help from whites who did not share their Christian beliefs because these whites had not learned their politics from their religion.

What is the solution? That question almost serves as the end of the article. Anyabwile's solution revolves around no longer severing the ethical from the Gospel. And that ethical includes more than one's personal ethics, it includes the ethics that comes from our political convictions. And we must do so for the sake of the Church and the Gospel. 

This second article is a very worthwhile article to read because it gets at some of the core reasons why the political views of white Christians can differ so much from the political views of black Christians. And before closing by saying that one should read this particular article by Anyabwile, a lesson what it means to know vs what it means to understand from Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef is vital here.

Max-Neef gave an illustration about our experience with love to show the difference between knowing and understanding.  Max-Neef said that one can study love by learning about the psychology of love, the biology of love, and so forth and still not understand what love is about. One might know everything that is written about love, but one doesn't really understand love until one has fallen in love. Once one has fallen in love, they can start to understand what love is about.

And that is a challenge made by this blogpost to whites when they are puzzled by the political views of their black brothers and sisters in Christ. Us white Christians will never understand what the black experience in America has been like because we will never suffer in America what blacks have and still suffer. Thus before we pass judgment on the political views of our black Christian brothers and sisters, we should look to know everything we can about their collective experiences with the knowledge that we will never understand their views because we have never experienced what they have. And thus we should not let the differences in their views serve as a threat to how we see ourselves. I say that because like the debate I overheard from the two people mentioned earlier, learning about our advantages can rightfully challenge how we see ourselves and others.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 17, 2016

Aug 3

To Barry Corey and his blogpost that tried to explain why he and some religiously conservative colleges and individuals are opposing a California state bill that would protect from discrimination based on sexual orientation by institutions that receive state assistance.This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

I understand why some in California are fighting against a state bill that would force religiously conservative colleges into accepting certain behaviors by its employees and students that violate Christian morals and the Scriptures. I understand and agree with their opposition to the new law. However, I am not sure if people like Barry Corey fully understand what they are fighting against. That is because part of what they are fighting against is a pendulum swing. When the pendulum was going the other way, there was no concern expressed by religious conservatives about the religious freedom of those who believed differently about same-sex marriage, homosexual rights at the work place. There was no concern for the religious liberties of what would become the LGBT community especially when homosexual acts were counted as crimes. Likewise, there is no concern for the religious liberties of those who believe homosexuality is accepted by God in those states that are or are currently trying to  pass anti-LGBT laws--the reverse in the pendulum swing hasn't hit those states yet.

And as people like Barry Corey do not fully understand what they are fighting against, neither do those who are pushing the pendulum the other way understand what Barry Corey et. al. are fighting for when they make their case. And unless us religious conservatives acknowledge how wrong it was to push the pendulum in the other direction, it will be difficult for those in charge of the current direction of the pendulum to recognize how wrong they can be as they currently push the pendulum.

Should be noted that there is an immediate solution here for schools like BIOLA. It could refuse to receive state assistance. This appears to be one of the focal points of the bill. That if an institution receives state assistance, the state gets to set some parameters regarding its operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aug 4

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost containing his analysis of Vladimir Putin. This appeared on the Imaginative Conservative blog.

When comparing Putin to Russia's past, the more appropriate comparison would be to the Tsars rather than the Soviet premiers. We should note that Russia had empire that had swallowed many of the nations that were part of the Soviet Empire prior to the emergence of the Soviet Union. We should also note that the kleptocracy that preceded Putin occurred during the reign of the Western favored leader, Boris Yeltsin. And we should note that Yeltsin used to the military to dissolve the Russian Parliament while he was pushing his neoliberal Capitalist agenda. And if you want to excuse some of Putin's approach and performance because of what he inherited, then the same should be done for Lenin and I am saying this as someone who has great disdain for Lenin and his government.

We should keep in mind the alleged connections between Putin and certain assassinations such as that of Anna Politkovskaya and a number of other journalists. And we should note his brutal policies in Chechnya when evaluating him. The Left has problems with Putin in other areas besides the Orthodox Church favored antagonism against the LGBT community. There is no leftist traits in Putin's rule and any alleged similarities between Putin and the Left because of the use of "big government" is based on a flawed definition of the Left and Socialism as well as a failure to recognize that since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has more-less a Capitalist economic system. Putin's initial relationship with the Oligarchs resembled the Roman Church's relationship with Germany's Nazi government as spelled out in the 1933 Konkordat. The oligarchs were free to conduct business as they wanted as long as they did not venture off into politics. A number of things did change and one was the fear that Russian energy companies were being sold out to foreign and multinational corporations. This was an affront to Russia's and Putin's nationalism. So the state bought controlling interests in these companies.

The above takes us to Russia's newest initiative to reprivatize its energy companies and guess who is in line to help seal the privatization deal? The move to sell has to do with the slumping price of oil and concerns over the state budget. Finally, we should understand the emphasis on nationalism and the tight connection between the Russian government and the Russian Orthodox Church that paints Russia as a picture of what some religiously Conservative Christians want America to be only with the conservative Church taking the Orthodox Church's place as having the ear of the government. So the analysis of Putin given in this article on the Imaginative Conservative website is understandable.

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

August 11

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that discussed on the impact that technology has on employment. This appeared in the Acton blog.

This article, along with the article it cites, are inadequate in their references to both the negative impact of technology and the reasons for losses in certain kinds of jobs. Unimployment is not the only negative impact that the new technology causes. Difficulties in relating to both others and ourselves as well as fewer opportunities to develop some logical skills have been negative impacts of technology observed by Sherry Turkle, s sociologist atMIT. She writes about this in her books Reclaiming Conversation and Alone Together. And these problems are not brought about by technology per se, but by the uncritical embracing of each new technology.

As for the lost of manufacturing jobs, technology is not the only culprit. The offshoring of jobs in order maximize profits is probably as big a reason for the drop in manufacturing jobs here as technology is. And these jobs are often shipped overseas to places where labor and environmental regulations are less stringent to the point that both workers and the envirionment are often exploited.

So why shortchange the discussion on both technology and the causes for unemployment? 

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on annoncing the coming review of non major party candidates and parties. This blogpost's subject is the Libertarian Party. This appeared in the Acton blog.

This is a welcomed post because by shedding light on third parties, it is encouraging more voter independence.

At the same time, a basic tenet of the Libertarian Party must be challenged. That tenet is to take an almost all-or-nothing approach to individual liberty. It not quite all-or-nothing becaue it recognizes how one can't use their individual liberty to 'forcibly' infringe on the rights of others. However, there are ways in which individuals can infringe on the rights of others without resorting to force.

At the very beginning of the Liberatarian Platform is the following statement  (see https://www.lp.org/platform ).:

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

What is missed is the ability to recognize a cult of the individual. This is especially true in a society and world where there is an ever growing interdependence. But what is also missed with its emphasis on the individual and their liberty is another kind of freedom. That other kind of freedom is a group freedom. It is the freedom of the group to determine the laws that will instruct us on how we are allowed to treat each other. In our country, such a group freedom is called Democracy. And when a democracy is properly functioning, the power of individuals is limited by the decisions of the group--that is society. And there must be a balance between individual liberty and democracy lest either one oversteps its bounds. We should note here that there are some who write for the Acton blog who, in previous correspondence with myself, have denied the existence of this group freedom.

Finally, to show how the basic tenets of the Libertarian Party takes too many absolute and inflexible positions, note the following line:

We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.

We should ask libertarians if the above platform line of theirs requires the Gov't to abolish the FAA. For if it does, we have a mess with potentially deadly consequences.  But if not, then why is the IRS being abolished too? For won;t we have a government and national economic mess without those who collect taxes.

In short, the Libertarian Party's flaw is not wrong in its beliefs in liberty. Its flaw is its near all-or-nothing approach to individual liberty that blinds the party from both recognizing the group freedom that comes with democracy as well as being flexible enough in its approach to The Constitution so that it can be applied to the ever changing world rather than pretending that the world must always be seen as being too simplistic for us to have to keep adjusting to an ever changing set of affairs. However, such is my interpretation the Libertarian Party and its Platform and people who care about America should read the whole Libertarian Platform as well as the platforms of other third parties for themselves.

https://www.lp.org/platform 

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

To Joseph Sunde his blogpost and its video on how job of flipping hamburgers can glorify God. This appeared in the Acton blog.

We might ask if it glorifies God to pay those who flip hamburgers poverty wages especially when we consider the changing demogrpahics that such jobs have undergone. Those demographics show that jobs such as flipping hamburgers are no longer kids' jobs because of the lack of other economic opportunities that exist.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 14

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote that tries to distinguish Christianity from the American optimism of people like Norman Vincent Peale. This appeared in Heidelblog

What we also need is to distinguish Christianity from any American conservative political ideology. That does not mean that there are no elements in that conservative political ideology that are valid. Rather, what it does mean is that Christianity or Christian politics cannot be identified with that conservative political ideology so that there are Biblically supported tenets from political liberalism and leftist political ideology that have biblical support.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 13, 2016

July 7

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on what the Iowa Civil Rights Commission expects from churches. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

If you read the Iowa Civil Rights Act, the most probable reason for the approach that the Iowa Civil Rights Commission is taking to churches and religious institutions is that the Commission is applying the same criteria to the term 'public accommodation'  for churches and other religious institutions as it applies for private clubs. So that a private club is considered to be Public Accommodations if it  'caters or offers services, facilities, or goods to the nonmembers for fee or charge or gratuitously, it shall be deemed a public accommodation during such period' for an event.  (see the definition of Public Accommodation in https://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&ga=83&input=216. ). Thus, there is no targeting of religious institution in the law and thus, IMO, the title of this blogpost is a bit of an overstatement.

The problem though is the question of whether the Iowa Civil Rights Act should use the same criteria for public accommodations for church services and other religious institution events as is applied to private club events. After all, how is that we can equate sermons and other parts of a religious service to the catering, kinds of services, facilities, or goods that a private club might offer to the public? In addition, the Iowa Civil Rights Act does not provide a precise definition for the term 'religious purpose.'

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

July 9

To Russell Kirk and his article that was posted on a review of Edmund Burke’s view of what makes  a good constitution. This was posted in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

In essence, Burke's principles on constitutions, as reported by Russell Kirk, was built from an exalted view of both one's own upbringing as well as The Constitution of the United States. And nothing indicates this more than principles #2 & #3.  With principle #2, his emphasis that man is a religious animal and that there is a need to be accountable to a divine authority for people to be principled kind of forgets all of the abuses people have practiced in the name of their religion. The Church's support for wealth and power prior to the French Revolution should have taught Burke something different about the need for religion. Also, in terms of how his emphasis on a national religion for America, there is no national church here is that the Revolution required a certain level of manpower and that manpower could only be drawn from a religiously diverse group.

But another point must be made about religion. That all too often the Church, that is the branch of the Church that is dominant in a given nation, has supported wealth and power at the expense of justice for many of the people. Yes, the Church can contribute to a stable society by doing so. At the same time, when that stable society can no longer be tolerated, the Church suffers persecution while it causes the Gospel to be dishonored. Though I am not a fan of Vladimir Lenin, we should note his criticism/observation about Christianity in Russia prior to the Revolution (see https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm ):

Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze,   in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

Of course what Burke, according to Kirk, is praising, Lenin is protesting and it has strong connections with his next point. In point #3, Burke praises a 'natural aristocracy' which he equates with men who have made it in the business world and that any democracy that he envisions is heavily reliant on this aristocracy. Burke must have had his wish with The Constitution because it was for the most part written by America's own natural aristocracy  and it was written to maintain the status quo for their benefit against the interests of others.

Something could also be said about Burke's point #4 as interpreted by Kirk, he calls for a balance between the claims of freedom and the claims for order. But order for whom or for whose benefit? Is this order so that Burke's natural aristocracy can fulfill its role in society? The trouble here is that the elevation of any group in society goes against the grain of democracy for democracy is about sharing power rather than seeking control. For control corrupts and destroys democracy. In addition, regarding Burke's notion of natural law, we should note that natural law does not carry a universal definition.

What appeals to Burke about constitutions should not surprise anyone. His notion of an acceptable constitution, despite its use of democracy, is one that is based on a certain degree of authoritarianism. In comparison to a dictatorship, we could refer to this as authoritarianism-lite. The reliance on authoritarianism is part in parcel with Conservatism's emphasis on maintaining traditional values. And here there exists an inverse relationship between how comprehensive the traditional set of values emphasized by a given set of conservatives is to governing life and both democracy and freedom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost defending churches’ current tax exempt status. This appeared in the Acton blog.

I have to disagree with both the blogpost above and the article it cites. One of the reasons cited from the article is that making churches tax-exempt cuts them loose from the 'burdens of tax laws.' But any church that pays employees must meed the burdens of following some of our tax laws already. And my feeling is that churches don't want to be taxed because of the tax laws themselves, it is due to the result of following those tax laws. That is paying tax bills. And if a church cannot pay its tax bills, then it is not paying its fair share for the government services it consumes. Thus, others are left with the bill for those services.

Much of the argument here is a survival one. Making churches tax exempt allows them to operate. We should note that businesses that shirk at least some of their tax responsibilities are operating under the same idea.

In addition, there is a small government argument embedded in apologetic for keeping the tax exemption status for churches. Since making churches tax exempt gives them a better chance of surviving economically, and since religious institutions provides avenues by which voluntary associations of people can be used to provide services for people which reduces the number of services government has to provide, religious institutions should remain tax exempt. Such employs a reasoning that, in the end, makes businesses a main beneficiary of keeping churches tax exempt. Why? Because the more responsibilities that the gov't doles out to religious institutions to provide safety nets for the people, the less gov't has to spend on those safety nets and thus the less in taxes businesses must pay. But such forgets a key point when gov't attempts to help individuals or groups that are in need. That key point is that when gov't helps those in need, it demonstrating that the gov't is representing the people it is helping. On the other hand, the fewer government safety nets there are, the less the gov't is representing those in need.

Finally, there is the argument that says that keeping churches tax exempt lessens government's regulatory power.  Here we should note that the 2008 economic collapse was due in large part to the lessening of the regulatory power of the gov't. And here, we should note that the gov't already regulates religious institutions by the necessity of definition.  Regulations are needed to determine if an institution is a religious one or not.

There is no good argument for defending tax exemptions for churches. But that conservatives defend that tax exempt status shows how the Church here in America is imitating the Church during the pre-revolutionary times in France, Russia, and Spain. The Church supported those with wealth and power and the favor was returned. We should note how many religiously conservative Christians favor reducing the number of regulations and the taxes paid by businesses. And the less that businesses, especially the wealthy ones, avoid paying their fare share in taxes, the more the tax burden is shifted over to working people. Such was one of the situations that existed just before the French Revolution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 10

To Annie Holmquist and her blogpost that recommended the reading of the Anti-Federalist Papers. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Website.

At some point, we have to move off the Federalist/Anti-Federalist continuum to include with, rather than just replacing, it with a concern for and proposals for Constitutional amendments that would protect individuals from being oppressed by other individuals. We should note that the there were both Federalists and And-Federals who oppressed Blacks through the institution of slavery. And fans of both groups supported Jim Crow and support Jim Crow II. And currently there are those who still try to deny equality and civil rights for those in the LGBT community.

The government is not our only potential enemy and our Founding Fathers knew this because many of them exploited Blacks through slavery. Thus, what The Constitution with the Bill of Rights allowed for was the continuation of  individuals infringing on the rights of other individuals and thus both supported the status quo of their time.

BTW, did anyone notice what the anti-Federalists said about prosperity:

A republican, or free government, can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous, and where property is pretty equally divided

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

July 12

To Denny Burk and his blogpost quoting the Dallas Police Chief as saying that too much is being asked of police officers today. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.

I agree with the police chief. We should also note how difficult a police officer's job can be without asking them to do too much.

The solution to the problem recognized by the police chief has multiple parts. Yes, we need children to be born in families and for families to remain intact. However, we also need revitalize economic opportunities for men of all ages living in densely populated urban areas for families to stay together. We also need to renew gov't provision of some of the services mentioned by the police chief. And for all of that to happen, we need to switch from an economic system built on the Ayn Rand's self-centered philosophy to one that is based on participation to the point of contributing, sharing, and cooperation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Alexander Salter and his blogpost stating that the Brexit vote shows that it is necessary, for our own good, that democracy should be limited as recommended by the founding fathers. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.


We should note why the Federalists despised a more direct democracy, it was a threat to the status quo from which the Federalists so easily benefited from at the expense of others. After all, The Constitution was written in response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion. And what some of the people who opposed the new American elite proposed was politically called innovation by the Federalists. Federalists, like James Madison, believed in elite-centered rule couched in a republic where Senators were protected from the wrath of American voters which made up of around 5% of the people when The Constitution became law.
As for Jefferson's quote, there are two problems. First, logically speaking, the decisions in a Republic are made in a similar way as the decisions in a democracy only fewer people, more likely the elites, are the ones voting. So if we could call democracy, where 51% of the people rule, 'mob rule,' we could call our republic, where either 51% or 60% of the elected elites rule 'the mob rules.' Unless you have a dictatorship, the majority will have their way.

However, there is another problem with the Thomas Jefferson quote shown above is that the The Jefferson Monticello Website has no evidence that Thomas Jefferson ever said anything related to that quote (see https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-nothing-more-mob-rule ).

In the end, those who are most opposed to Democracy are following in line with the Federalists of old. And it should surprise no one that a religiously conservative website like this one should want limits on democracy because those who are religiously conservative tend to be authoritarians. And that is where the issue lies. Will we be self-governing for which only Democracy provides the necessary political structures or should we leave the important decisions up to our elites in hopes that, in the face of any conflict of interest, they will rule with our best interests at heart? 



 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 27, 2016

April 19

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on society’s changing values especially those stemming from the new position that the LGBT community has achieved in society. This appeared in Heidelblog.

What religiously conservative American Christians have had the greatest difficulty with is knowing what to let go in society and what to battle for. Because many of us have grown up in a different time when Christian values held a stronger place in developing cultural and societal values, we look at each new change in our culture and society with shock and dismay. Though the dismay is often appropriate, the shock isn't. 

And because we have not made wise choices in knowing which cultural and societal values to battle, we have failed to share society with those who are different as equals. And more than anything else, our crusade to marginalize those from the LGBT community has stirred much greater anger than any differences that exist in our beliefs and values.

So as we critique, as is done above, society's newest values and trends, we need to know the natural boundaries of that critique as we share society with others as equals. It is unclear whether the above article articulates the location of those boundaries.

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

April 20

To Collin Hansen and his blogpost interview of Nabeel Qureshi from Ravi Zacharias’ Ministries on Christianity and Islam. This appeared in The Gospel Coalition website.

I find this post to be one of the most inadequate blogposts on a Christian's view of Islam ever. Which matters more about the person interviewed: is it that he was a former Muslim or that he currently works for a Western Christian apologist? And, btw, by describing Nabeel Qureshi's boss, Ravi Zecharias as a Western Christian apologist, we might include that he is as much a Wester apologist as he is a Christian one (see http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/top-christian-voice-west-being-taken-down-in-small-portions/   ). But we might want to note something else about Zacharias. There are serious questions regarding his past claims about some of his past positions and degrees (see http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2015/08/24/press-release-has-evangelist-ravi-zacharias-misrepresented-his-academic-credentials/  

The gist of the interview accessible above is this: if, according to Qureishi, Muslims faithfully follow their sacred writings, then not only will they be at war with Christians, they will join groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram. Though Qureishi acknowledges that the vast number of Muslims are peaceful, their being peaceful is because of many years of traditions that told them to despite what the Quran says. 

There is a problem here though. The Quran does have verses that tell Muslims to live at peace with others. One such verse tells Muslims to live at peace with one's neighbor if that neighbor desires to live at peace with them. In addition, we might also want to ask other Muslims about Qureishi's claims made in the above interview especially since Qureishi himself acknowledges that Muslims are a diverse group.

One of the key problems in listening to the Qureishi interview is his selective use of facts. Already mentioned was the failure to report the verses in the Quran that  preach peace. Another failure is in Qureishi's failure to give the full picture of Muhammad's use of violence. According to several sources, including material from investigative journalist Jason Burke, Mohammed's use of violence was in response to the injustices he witnessed at Mecca. Also visible at Mecca was the belief in many gods--polytheism held by many. From those observations, Mohammed associated the presence of injustices with polytheism. After those battles, Mohammed sought to install a utopia that would come about by people following the revelation he claimed he received from God.

Further, we should note Qureshi's comparisons between the bloodshed in the Old Testament and that of Islam, especially its earlier years. He makes the claim that the Quran orders Muslims to kill Christians for their beliefs while the people whom the Hebrews killed when claiming the Promised Land were receiving God's judgment for their sins. This is where Qureshi's exclusion of Mohammed's crusades against inequality and injustices at Mecca and other places when he was involved in prosecuting wars almost shows a dishonesty in Qureshi's comparison. On the one hand, he has no problems with what the Hebrews did because the then residents of the Promised Land were being killed for their actions. But unjust actions that Mohammed witnessed was precisely why he waged war first in Mecca, and then in the surround area and beyond and yet they are not mentioned in the comparison.

Qureshi's account of the Crusades also merits attention. For while Qureshi is quick to point out that the Quran promises eternal life for those whose jihad results in being killed in war, the Pope at the time of the First Crusade offered indulgences for sins in order to help raise an army to retake Jerusalem. In addition, the cruelty visited by the First Crusaders   on the residents of places like Jerusalem was horrendous.

And while Qureshi states that it took a thousand years for Christians to engage in religious wars whereas Muslims had been fighting almost immediately after Islam was found, there is a context for that. That context was the timing of the divisions in the Christian Church vs the divisions that occurred in Islam. When they did occur though, we had a long period of religious wars in Europe. But not mentioned by Qureshi is the fact that the Church relied on the violence of the state to help expand Christianity to other areas of the world. 

During the current time, we see many injustices forced on the people of the Orient. We see Israel's brutal occupation against the Palestinians, we see Middle East tyrants being supported by the West so long as these tyrants support the business interests of the West, we've seen coups and the supporting of terrorists. We should only note that Ronald Reagan supported both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. And yet, none of this is mentioned when comparing Islam to Christianity and the West.

The above is a very brief sampling of the inadequate and unreliable statements Qureshi makes about Islam. Should note here that I am speaking as a Christian Fundamentalist who adamantly disagrees with Islam's denial that Christ is the Son of God. But the gross inaccuracies made and selective use of historical facts  by Qureshi moves me to say that his description of Islam in the interview above contains too many inaccuracies for comfort.

But there is a problem greater than the content of Qureshi's comments. That greater problem is the fact that Christians are going only to fellow Christians not just for perspective and worldview, but for the facts on the ground. We can call this problem Christian insularity. We seek to learn about the world only from our own. And for as long as we do that, we will not only be unable to adequately evangelize others, we will lay stumbling block after stumbling block before the people we want to convert the most because we have misrepresented them when discussing history and current events. And all of these inaccuracies also serve to persuade Conservative Christians to support a war not just against terrorism practiced by extremists, but a war against another religion based on false statements.

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

April 22

To Russell Moore and his review of a book that explains why liberals always win culture wars. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

There are a couple of problems here. The first problem is the us vs them mentality in society. Conservatives vs Liberals. Those who know best vs the foolish. Good vs evil. How could conservatives who think this way possibly share society with nonconservative without seeking to control them? And how could conservatives who seek to control nonconservatives in society possibly understand democracy? Finally, what is the salvation status of Christians who have some political liberal or even leftist leanings?

Second, conservatives are not anti-utopian, they are post-utopian. In other words, all of the wisdom that is needed to live or experience the best life possible has been taught in past and followed in the good old days. It isn't that Conservatives who reject change and progressive ideas do so because they don't believe the utopian hype that often comes with these ideas. Rather, Conservatives believe that change has destroyed some mythical utopia that supposedly existed in the past.

As Moore has been warning people about the upcoming acceptance of same-sex marriage, I would like to suggest that the more we fight culture wars, the more we seek to unnecessarily control the lives of unbelievers in society. And the more we seek to control their lives, the less likely they will want to listen to the Gospel. So here is a suggestion, pursue culture coexistence rather than victory in the culture wars.

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

April 23

To Eric’s April 22 comment that responded to my claim that we had invaded Vietnam. He challenged that idea and this was part of the discussion on the Death by Government blogpost posted in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Eric,
You have the history backwards. Vietnam was actually divided to facilitate the expulsion of the Japanese after WW II. The French wanted take the opportunity to recolonize at least part of Vietnam. We had promised during WW II to help them do just that. When the French failed, we decided to prevent the reunification of Vietnam by first sending advisors to help sustain the dictatorship. in the South. The Geneva Accords attempted to address the division and the agreement made there was that the South would vote decide on reunification by voting on in. We ignored the Accords and maintained the dictatorship and that eventually became the Vietnam War, the war that included our invasion to prop up the dictators we favored and, in some cases, installed.

Now if you think I am revising history, we can discuss the subject by listing our supporting documentation.

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

To Eric and his April 22 comment that claim that the Left is responsible for all the murders committed by people like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. This was part of the discussion on the blogpost about death by government on the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Eric,
Whenever I read your accusations against the Left, I get the feeling that you are auditioning for something like, perhaps an Ann Coulter variety show, than trying to present a logical argument. .For it seems that you are more interested in being vehemently harsh than being precise. And your references to the Left indicate someone who is pretty much insular in their readings.

Certainly people like Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and others are guilty of murder, no argument there. But how are those Leftists who were murdered by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao responsible for their own deaths let alone the deaths of others? What about those Leftists who reject Lenin, Stalin, and Mao and who came after those three? They are responsible too?

Let me ask the same question in another way. Were all of America's founding fathers guilty of supporting slavery in our nation? And, a trickier question, were they all responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land?

Not too long ago, Bruce Frohnen wrote an article whose title far outpaced its content. The title was: 'Can Civility Be Restored To Our Campuses?' Frohnen went downhill from there by scapegoating the Left for the lack of civility on campuses. I say scapegoat because he never looked at what those particular Leftists were protesting as contributing to the problem. Now, do I feel some leftists contribute to the lack of civility on college campuses? Most certainly I do! But it has nothing to do with their Leftist ideology, it has everything to do the current trend, which Frohnen took part in, of externalizing evil and scapegoating the other side. After all, if the other side is evil, you must do all you can to silence them. And that is what Frohnen attempted to do in his article. And many from the Left, the Right, and Liberals have joined this trend.

We can't have civility anywhere for as long as groups externalize evil and scapegoat their opponents for the problems they see. For as long this is the trend, then each side will adopt the ends justifies the means ethic in trying to silence the other side. For Christians, it also means that we will start living out the prayer of the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying. In terms of how Martin Luther King Jr. described the West during the Vietnam War Vietnam, each side will be unjust to the other because each side will assume that it has everything to teach the other side and nothing to learn from them.

We can't be civil to each other when we can so easily demonize the other while putting ourselves on a pedestal.

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

April 25

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of John Calvin on the Regulative Principle for worship. The Regulative Principle states that the only ways by which we can worship are those that are commanded by God’s Word. Those ways of worship that have not been commanded are verboten and considered to be false worship.  This appeared in Heidelblog.

Personally, I think what has most hindered Reformed Theology is the regulative principle. All we have to do is to look at how it is stated here to see why. Note what is strongly associated, it is false worship and that which was not explicitly commanded from the beginning. 

Such not only causes us to start forcing Gentiles to live like Jews, as Peter was once accused of doing by Paul, and such not only forces us to approach worship as the Pharisees approached the law by paying attention to selected details and forgetting the spirit of what is involved, but it also denies both the implied change that Jesus spoke of when He said that a time will come when we will worship God in spirit and in truth and the changes necessitated by the death and Resurrection of Christ along with the Great Commission telling us to preach the Gospel throughout the world.

It is bad enough that this principle was applied to worship, but it often leaks out in other areas of life. When talking about fellow Reformed Christians about whether they should be involved in activism, the regulative principle is resorted to as people restrict their involvement to imitating specific NT examples or following explicit commands while ignoring biblical issues of justice or loving one's neighbor. It is as if the only practical theology we can learn is what we can imitate or what we are directly commanded to do.

This reliance on the regulative principle can, to some, make the New Testament as inflexible or irrelevant to life today as a literalist approach to The Constitution makes that document the same in answering today's new legal issues. In addition, we should note that no one consistently takes a literalist approach to The Constitution. Conservatives who claim to fail when they decontextualize the 2nd Amendment by removing the mention of the militia from the right to bear arms. Are those who follow the regulative principle far behind when they, as mentioned before, overlook the NT theology mentioned above?

There is a legitimate concern in using the regulative principle. That concern is that innovation can take us away from God's Word into self-worship. For innovation can separate us from the Apostolic faith that we lose essential connections with it. However, is forbidding all innovation, as the regulative principle does, the answer? Are there Biblical principles that can be used to guide our attempts to innovate?

On the one hand, because new issues and circumstances arise, theology must, at times, be new and fresh.  But that newness must never be allowed to separate us from or cause us to compromise the essentials of what has been revealed. For when it does, we've left the faith. But not allowing theology to be new condemns the essentials of our faith to irrelevance due to our inflexibility in applying the Gospel to today's new issues. And those who insist on prohibiting the new find themselves in homogeneous church groups that are unable to reach out to those who are different. The Regulative principle forces us into such groups as our rigidity in recognizing the issues people face in the world today blinds us to the new problems and concerns people experience today.

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

April 26

To Michael Severance and his blogpost that covers how Rev. Robert Sirico claimed that Christianity best protects the balance between the individual and the social. This appeared in the Acton blog.


The first question that comes to mind when reading about the interview with Rev. Robert Sirico is this: Which Christian view of anthropology provides the best blend of the individual and the social? Theologically conservative Christians lean toward one set of views on that balance while theologically liberal Christians lean toward another. To show the difference, we should note that theologically liberal Christianity leans more toward Socialism than than its conservative counterpart. In addition, without mentioning the details, Sirico's view of what Socialism says about people seems to be more the result of having used deduction than induction. We should also note that European Socialism is really a mix of a little socialism with some liberalism in the context of a global economy that is predominantly neoliberal.

Now if I was to take an inductive approach to Sirico's claims, I would have to say that theologically conservative Christianity does not best protect the balance between the individual and the social. Why? Because of its favoring of entrepreneurialism and business, it grants more individual rights and less social responsibility especially to those who are able to help the vulnerable to such an extent that it seems that there is an inverse correlation between having wealth and how much social responsibility one has. And if we examine the history of the Civil Rights Movement, we see that there seemed to be a greater reluctance on the part of theologically conservative Christian leaders and institutions to oppose racism than was seen in their theologically liberal counterparts.

From the article printed above, we see the great fault of theologically conservative Christians. That fault is the tendency to rely too heavily on deduction and/or to selectively use induction in answering questions like the one posed to Sirico For how does he answer the question, he speaks in general of the world views of Christianity and the Enlightenment while noting that Socialism is a product of the Enlightenment. In addition, he does not adequately use an inductive method to arrive at his conclusion and perhaps for good reason, historically speaking that is. For while he is content to compare the French and American Revolutions, he neglects to mention both the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land and America's horrendous treatment of Blacks both during slavery and afterwards. And many who participated in either ethnically cleansing Native Americans from the land or subjugating Blacks used Christian theology to defend their practices. He also neglects to refer to European colonialism that was practiced in the name of Christianity.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 24, 2016

Feb 18

To Elliot Clark and his blogpost on suggestions for being or creating 3rd culture Christians where we share the Gospel. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Suggestions #2,3, & 5 are very good. Suggestion #4 needs to be fleshed out. That leaves suggestion #1 and that needs to be qualified if we don't wish to spread colonialism with the Cross. For much of Church history that follows Constantine's conversion has been about Christian imperialism and colonialism is an important issue. That points to how the Church has throughout most of its history, been corrupted by the actual or potential acquisition of political power. With the corruption of the Church comes a distorted Gospel message. And that corruption continues to occur throughout the world today.

So how should this affect our teaching of Church history? Should we just focus on doctrines or do we include the Church's on-again, off-again love affair with political power? For while Christianity can be easily distinguished from other religions by its doctrine, it becomes one of the gang of those seeking power. And such is our dilemma in what to teach from Church history.

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

Feb 20

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how liberal economists disagree with Sanders' economic plans. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Here is a fact that is overlooked in the article. While Sanders never explains in detail how he is going to finance his promises, he has made one valid point: other nations are doing what he is promising to do here. So whatever "liberal" economists are claiming, the point is that a lot of what Sanders wants done is being accomplished under different conditions than exists here. And since conservatives, like Carter, harp on the fact that a raise in the minimum wage will mean a rise in unemployment without ever asking why, it is our current economic system and its conditions that need as much scrutiny as the promises made by each of the candidates.

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

To Jordan Ballor and his blogpost on 5 theses on taking care of the  environment. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Theses #1-3 are fine. But #4 has problems. Whether our economic stewardship clashes with our environmental stewardship should examined case by case basis. For much of produces profits and economic growth does hurt the environment regardless of whether short-term profit is involved. 


Thesis #5 misses a point. Fossile fuels are a key concern because of what they put back into the environment. Just because the use of nuclear fuel doesn't put back the same emissions that contribute to the build up of greenhouse gases doesn't mean that we can afford to neglect what the use of nuclear fuel does deposit in the enviornment. Perhaps solar and wind technology should be looked to more than nuclear--though doing so would not benefit corporate America as much as the other technologies.

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

Feb 22

To Joe Carter and his blogpost describing the tariffs proposed by Trump and Sanders as taxes on the poor and working class because of the increased prices they would have to pay for some imported goods. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Free trade advocates forget a couple of things here. First, not everyone is starting from the same point. The industries of some nations' are more developed than others. And one of the reasons why some nations have more developed industries is because those industries were formerly protected by tariffs. So now that they are developed, those nations with the developed industries insist that other nations continue to lag behind them because the other nations cannot use the same method of developing their own industries as were used before. Or in the case of the nations being targeted for tariffs by Trump and Sanders, one nation's industries outcompete their counterparts from other nations because they can cut costs by exploiting workers and the environment This is designed to keep nations in a strict caste system that is governed by those who are calling for their own freedom: business elites. 

This brings up a second problem with free trade. Free trade is not free to the nations that participate in it because they are not allowed to make laws that govern how foreign players from the private sector are treating the people in their nation. What is called economic freedom and free trade is nothing more than the continual reduction of social responsibilities for businesses. And what is deemed as reward for this freedom is the bottom line for those businesses because it is assumed that whatever is good for business, is good for all. 

Analogies are only as good as  their  portrayal of the object is complete. So like statistics, analogies that filter information can be classified as lies. Tariffs have never been viewed as a tax on those purchasing the goods as much as on those producing the goods. And when tariffs allow for nations to develop their own industries, then there comes a tradeoff for the higher prices one must pay today for those tariffed goods. That tradeoff can be more jobs for more people that come from developing industries that can eventually compete with the foreign industries of those nations which must pay tariffs. ANd we know what happens when these local industries begin to flourish. As the supply of goods increases, the prices go down. So to use the venacular here, the "taxes" that the middle and lower class consumers must pay now carry with them the potential for those taxes to self-destruct--as well as the elimination of the economic caste system managed by private sector elites. 

So why is it that Carter did not present this tradeoff or the above mentioned use of tariffs in his analogy and artilcle?

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

Feb 23

To Sarah Stanley and her blogpost warning against populism in 
general and how today's manisfestations in support for Trump and 
Sanders presents a danger to freedom. This appeared in the Acton blog.

I believe that the writer here confuses freedom and privilege. The main difference is that freedom is enjoyed by all, privilege is enjoyed by some. And those who are in the economic-political axis, and that includes Charles Koch, are gaining more privileges as the rest of us lose more freedoms. 

There is a reason why the writer here doesn't recognize the difference between freedom and privilege. It is, IMO, that the writer here reduces all freedom to individual freedom. Such destroys the concept of democracy. For Democracy involves a corporate freedom where society tells its members how they are allowed to treat each other. Yes, Democracies can go too far in making such rules. But reducing all freedom to individual freedom weakens, if not destroys, democracy for the benefit of the privileged. 

The Citizens United decision simply allows those who have the means to enjoy a privilege that others do not have. The Citizens United decision works to replace the 1-person-1-vote system on which our democracy is based with the free market principle of $1-1-vote. Those who object to populism may struggle to see why such a replacement is so abhorent. It is because such a replacement ensures a rule by elites rather than a democratic rule by all.

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

To Michael Dever, Voddie Baucham, and Bill Kynes and their podcast discussion of Christians and politics.  This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

There are important points to cover here. First, distinguishing being partisan and political in the Church is important especially since politics includes issues of justice and thus morality. So how can one be political without being partisan? It is a matter of the Church being a curmudgeon to all who are in or are seeking power that enables Christians to be political without being partisan. That is because  the Church can speak prophetically when being a curmudgeon and as long as it acts that way to all who are in or seek power, partisanship dissipates.

Also exposing utopias for what they are is another important point. But there is a subtle and sly way of advocating a utopia. That is to brand all attempts to improve the status quo as being utopian. That is because saying that things cannot improve is simply another way of saying that we have a utopia.

Finally the homosexual and same-sex marriage in society issues was brought up. And here, we should note that there is another issue involved besides a doctrinal one. That issue concerns itself with how we will share society with others, not just whether homosexuality is biblical. Of course it isn't, but neither worshiping other God and we allow freedom of religion. So the question regarding laws concerning hmosexuality an same sex marriage becomes whether we will share society with others as equals or will we seek some hierarchical relationsip as being over them.