Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 9, 2016

 Either Nov 4 or 5

To David Robertson and his Nov 4 response to my Nov 4 comment. In his comment, Robertson claimed that I was completely unable to describe what equality is. The original blogpost was about vendors refusing to provide service to a same-sex wedding. This appeared in the Wee Flea blog

David,
your notes are both clarifying and confusing. They are clarifying in terms of your penchant for making negative personal remarks about me. They are confusing because as much as you say I don't answer your questions, I already have. You asked what I mean by equality. IN one of previous notes, I defined equality for the LGBT community in society. I wrote the following on November 3:

So why do you have a problem with what equality means? Take the SSM issue for example. Wouldn’t equality mean that those from the LGBT community would have the same rights as those who are heterosexual: the right to work and live as they want just as heterosexuals have the right to work and live as they want. And part of living as they want would be the right to marry the person of their choice just as heterosexuals can.

I was very specific regarding what it would take to enable those in the LGBT community to experience equality in society.  So how can you say that I haven't answered your question about equality?

Establishing equality for a group depends on where their rights are not being recognized. During the Jim Crow era in the States, establishing equality meant something else because they didn't suffer inequality in the same way that the LGBT community does today. For Blacks back then, having the unencumbered right to vote and run for office along with the right to eat, work, live, and go to school where they desired was establishing equality for them. In other words, having the same rights and opportunities that all other groups have constitutes being equal. And that point should be clear from how I described what would make those from the LGBT community equal in society today.

Then how is my understanding of marriage bizarre? Viewing marriage as a complete union between two people is bizarre?

Remember that marriage in both of our countries is an institution for all in society. And society consists of both Christians and nonChristians. And the answer to your question about two brothers, a question I anticipated, is obvious from my previous answer. But what you want is a single source, like the Scriptures, that authoritatively tell us what we can and cannot do. And this is one of the key differences between us. That while I recognize the authority structures taught in the Scriptures, IMO, you seem to go beyond that and embrace an authoritarianism that does not know when to turn off the authority switch and work with others as equals in determining what laws we should pass and what kind of society we should have. In the meantime, you seem to be trying to paint the LGBT community and their practices as a threat to society which merits sanctions against at least some of their practices. Have you ever considered that the part of what Romans 1 teaches us is that homosexuality, though it is not normal in terms of how God designed us to be, could be normal among unbelievers? And if it is normal in terms of what we expect because man has fallen into sin, why are we trying so hard to suppress so many things through law.

Have you ever worked with any homosexuals or had close personal friendships with any? I have and that is regardless of the fact that they know what I believe the Bible says about homosexuality. In fact, some of those friends of mine and I have discussed it and we can because they know that I respect them as equals. They also know that we can because I very much appreciate their contributions to society, to my family, and to my own life.

Other than that, the counterexamples your bring up work only if one selectively employs equality. Your counterexaple of stealing does just that. It leaves out what was said about equality being measured in terms of opportunities and rights and focuses solely on possessions. Your bringing up polygamy and incest forgets the feasibility  and equality problems the former poses and the health and equality problems the latter poses. And this is despite the fact that I already addressed those points.

The real key issue here is that of authority and its use or abuse. It seems that you believe that we cannot relate to nonChristians as equals when it comes to sharing society with them. It seems that you believe that Christians must impose Biblical laws and principles on nonChristian members of society lest things become unmanageable. Unfortunately, Church history does not give Christians much evidence to support their right to have authority over nonChristians in society. Our past, and even current persecution, of the LGBT community shows why we should not rule over them. Our own intramural wars, colonialism, and empires give ample testimony as to why we should not rule over nonChristians. And yet, you want Christians to use the Bible to rule over nonChristians in society through the laws government passes.

And while we discuss these things, you continue to make negative personal remarks about me. And I am trying to think why ministers would assume the right to speak that way to me when we are all like the publican from the parable of the two men praying. Just as your negative personal remarks provide obstacles for me to take you seriously, Christians' efforts to control and impose their religious views on nonChristians through legislation make it very difficult for many of them to want to listen to the preaching of the Gospel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 7

To Joe Carter and his blogpost containing 12 recommendations for the Religious Right. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Recommendations #2, 4, 5, 6,10, 11, and 12 are very good suggestions. However, there will be disagreement on how to implement some of those recommendations. For example, does religious liberty for all include the inclusion of those who do not have a BIblical view of sex who want to participate in SSM or its exclusion? Doesn't legally prohibiting SSM because of what the Scriptures say about sex and marriage deny the religious liberties of those who don't hold to the Biblical view?

As for recommendation #7, the rejection of theocracy is not equal to the prevention of some kind of supremacy for Christians over the rest in society. And when we have some kind of supremacy, we don't fully have religious liberty. For liberty - equality = privilege. And the absence of theocracy does not equal the absence of supremacy especially when we measure supremacy on a continuum. The absence of theocracy simply means that there is no complete control over society by Christians. Paternalism is another way by which Christians seek to control over society. For with paternalism, Christians insist that the Biblical statements on a given individual issue be made law because of what is good for society. So Christians are trying to exercise a measure of control over society for society's sake. Again, the SSM issue comes to play here. One of the reasons why many Christians opposed SSM was because they believed that traditional marriage is essential for human flourishing and that society was not big enough for both traditional and same-sex marriages.

Or another way by which Christian paternalism can be exercised is for the government to grant special privileges and resources for the Church in order for the Church to take care of more and more of those who are in need. That means that instead of the government pitching in to help those people, it should bless the Church both financially and with political power so that the Church can have the resources to do the job.The Church, in essence, becomes the government's social service military force except that the Church does not take orders from the state. It is a way of making Christianity predominant in society without insisting on a theocracy. We should also note that after a certain threshold, the more the Church tries to replace the government in helping those in need, the louder the Church says that the government is not to represent all of its citizens, especially those citizens who are vulnerable.

As for recommendations #4 & 8, should we refuse to put those who have other political ideologies on trial or try to dethrone those conservatives who denigrate the character of either liberals or leftists? Should we do the same to liberals and leftists who try to do the same? If we are going to have a democracy, then we need to readily listen to and work with people from all sides otherwise we will be seeking control over them rather than sharing power with them.

As for recommendation #9, since politics and culture are so intertwined, it is too difficult to say that one should care more about the one or the other. It is the case that both culture affects politics and politics affects culture.

In short, those of us who are religiously conservative Christians, regardless of whether we are politically conservative, have a penchant for authoritarianism. That is because the Bible legitimately uses authority structures as a framework for so many of our relationships. As a result, we may not be able to turn off that authority switch when dealing with society. Just because we are not pushing for a theocracy doesn't mean that we are not seeking to have authority others in some way, shape, or form. Those who cannot turn off that authority switch probably embrace to some degree authoritarianism. And the problem with embracing authoritarianism, is that we have little patience with those who do not fall in line with our agenda.

A real democracy for a pluralistic society requires democratic processes as well as democratic state of being. That democratic state of being includes a preference to share power than to seize it. That state includes a concern for and solidarity with those who live in the margins of society so that we are not just pressing our own demands, we are pressing their demands as well. A true democracy is the sum of democratic processes and a democratic state of being. The latter can never be achieved without the former and the former without the latter simply results in the hijacking of democracy whether the hijacker is an individual, a small group, or the majority of people.

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

To Mark Howard and his blogpost on politics in America and the Church in Iran. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

We should note the similarity between the effects of the Shah's rule over Iran with that of those who seized power after the revolution. That similarity can be called guilt by association. Whereby Christianity suffered significant setbacks with the rise of the revolution but is now growing, so too many Muslims suffered much because of the Shah's westernizing of Iran and that led to acceptance of Ayatollah Khomeini back in 1979.

In addition, just as the pendulum swung in one direction under the Shah, how far the pendulum is swinging now is due to how far it was pushed before.

Both points here must be remembered when trying to understand Iran's current state of affairs as well as how we should work for change in all nations including our own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost about bringing back child labor but doing so without without the abuses of the past. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Kids as young as 16 already work. To allow children under 16 to work is to increase the supply of labor in the job market where the median age and average educational level for low skilled jobs have been rising. Of course, one of the accommodations for allowing younger children to work would be to establish an even lower minimum wage for them. Yes, that serves the interests of some corporations, but what does it do for the overall family income in which economic hopelessness is on the rise because of the loss of adequate paying low skilled jobs?

In addition, as one who taught college, I saw the conflict many students faced between putting in enough hours of work to pay their bills and putting in enough hours in their studies to get a true education. All too many times, the latter suffered significantly because of the former. Should we do the same on a wide scale with children who are younger than 16?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 8

To Joe Carter and his blogpost evaluating the different approaches to voting from a Christian perspective. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

What needs commenting on is the quote from Jeremiah. For unlike the exiled Jews in Babylon, we American Christians have an earthly citizenship in America. And thus, we bear a responsibility for both America's prosperity and how it obtains that prosperity. So it seems to me that we shouldn't just pray and work for our prosperity, we should pray and work for justice so that our welfare doesn't come at the expense of the welfare of others either here or abroad.

Christianity And Violence

The first part of the title of David Robertson's (click here for a bio) blogpost was: 'Did The Church Spread By Violence?' (click here for article). This article was also posted in British Christian website, Christian Today (click here for the same article, different location). The answer to the question is a little hard to find in his article. Why? Robertson meanders for a while before he actually starts to answer the question. And meandering points to a discomfort with the question. And quite frankly, the history of Christianity should make Christians, especially conservative ones like myself, more than just a little on edge when even considering the question.

Robertson starts his article by focusing on why some people have problems with the Gospel and Christianity. These problems revolve around the behavior of the Church and its use of violence to grow. For Robertson, these questions focus in on a very tiny list of objectionable historical events: the Crusades, the burning of witches, and the Inquisition. With the latter two of these historical events, Robertson tries to have his cake and eat too by acknowledging that there was sin and problems in the Church at that time, but that the number of those killed was not nearly as many as what he says some unbelievers have said it was. However, with the first two of those time periods, Robertson tries to distance the Church from the violence the violence practiced then by asking if it was the Church or some other entity acting in the name of Christianity that committed the violence.

Robertson then goes on to discuss the Early Church and then the definition of the Church before he directly addresses the question stated in the title of his article. 

Robertson wants to answer this question historically and so he recommends a couple of resources. He also claims to have an adequate knowledge of history to be qualified to address this question. He then goes on to attack secularists for how he says they portray Christianity by either inflating the number victims and then judging all Christians by the acts of some.

But there is slight of hand in all of this. Robertson's deception is found in his reduced list of historical events dealing with Christianity and violence. He limits these events to the Crusades, the burning of witches, and the Inquisition. And here, Robertson is being either disingenuous to an educated audience or presumptively hopeful that his immediate audience does not know enough history. For the history of Christianity and violence is not confined to these three events.

The first association of Christianity with violence came after the Battle of Milan (312 AD) where Constantine claimed that God had given him his victory. After that point, Constantine had the Cross put on the shields of his army. It should be noted however that as Constantine legalized Christianity in the Empire, he was somewhat tolerant of and used the symbols of other religions for a while, but he later took an aggressive stance against them. However the first person who really deserves credit for using violence to spread Christianity or suppress other religions was the Roman Emperor Theodosius who reigned a few decades after Constantine. Under Theodosius, Christianity became the official religion of the Empire and adherents to pagan religions as well as those who belonged to heretical cults were sorely persecuted.

Robertson could have also mentioned the numerous religious wars that took place in Europe (click here). There were at least ten such wars during the time of the Reformation in Europe and the British Islands. Of course, those wars do not include the on-again, off-again cycle of violence Christians practiced against the Jews in Europe.

Robertson also could have mentioned the violence used to spread Christianity by the force used to establish and maitain the British Empire as well as the violence used by Americans to take land away from the Native Americans. Certainly, violence and Christianity were not the only factors in the spread of the British Empire or in the expansion of European settlers in America  However, violence was used to secure the British empire and Christianity rode in on its coattails. The same could be said of other European Empires that expanded to other continents such as the Spanish Empire. With the spread of this empire came the spread of the influence of the Roman Church in much of the Americas, especially in South and Central America.

Meanwhile in America, some of the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land was done explicitly in the name of Christianity. Some of America's earliest Christian European settlers saw themselves as God's new Israel while they viewed the land here as their Canaan. Thus, violence played a role in the spreading of Christianity in America. We should also note that in the earliest times of the colonies, religious intolerance gave way to the use of violence between Christians of different denominations. For example, Puritans use to persecute and, in a few cases,  even martyr Quakers. We should also note the violence practiced much later on by the KKK after Reconstruction. The KKK claimed to be a Christian organization.

We should note that today, American Christians don't necessarily practice violence themselves to spread their religion. Rather, as the Church did prior to the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions, they have supported wealth in power as America was establishing a global hegemony. And with that dominance came a partial spread of the American way of life including avenues for American Christianity to spread to other nations. So here we could possibly say that American Christianity uses the violence practiced by its government to spread its influence even when the American government's intended use of its violence had nothing to do with religion.

The point of this post is not to give a historical accounting of how the Christianity used violence to spread through the world. Rather, the purpose of this blogpost is for me to ask my fellow religiously Conservative Christians, or as I sometimes refer to them as my fine, fellow flaming fundamentalists friends and family to be brutally honest with ourselves when answering questions regarding the dark times in Christianity's history. It seems that for many Christians, and, according to the second part of the title of Robertson's article for him too, Christianity's dark times in history has created some apologetic nightmares. And now we Americans, and perhaps the British and Scots too noting that Robertson is Scottish, we find ourselves in a recently arrived at, post Christian environment and we are tempted to say all we can to stop the bleeding. But not being honest about our moral failures in the past, such as Robertson fails to be in his article when he reduces Christianity's use of violence to spread to just 3 events, only accelerates our free fall from our former place in society.

Any historian reading this article can easily tell that I, myself, am not a historian. However, even I can see the glaring weakness in arguments like the one Robertson uses to disassociate the use of violence and the spread of Christianity. Such faulty arguments can only discredit us. And our loss of credibility makes sharing the Gospel that much more difficult and unnecessarily so.

In modern times, the American Church itself rarely, if ever, uses violence to spread its influence. Instead, the Church, as it has often done in the past, relies on the government's use of violence to act as in order to create the government's coattails on which the Church can ride on. And unless we are willing to be upfront with a significant number of moral failures practiced by the Church in both the past and present, we will be unable to share the Gospel with any significant degree of integrity.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 20, 2015

May 14

To Denny Burk and his blogpost on how it is Christian business owners who are counted as the "least of these" in Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.

What is at odds with Burk's application is the listing of those who are being helped. The least of these are those shunned by society and who can offer no incentive for us to help them. Does that sound like successful business owners? Or does this show a less restrictive definition for the word 'brother' in this particular passage? Here we should note James 2 in talking about who is poor and the transition in reference made in that chapter.

That words can have multiple meanings is an observable fact when one reads the scriptures. That context helps determine the meaning words will have is also an observable fact. What is also observable is how too many of us religiously conservative Christians have made the same-sex marriage issue all about us forgetting how we have tried to marginalize the LGBT community in society. So if we are persecuted for having first persecuted others, can we be counted as the least of these? And isn't this claim to be the least of these just another way to rally fellow Christians around making everything about us?

Perhaps we need to talk to those we have marginalized in society to learn about their experiences and perspectives. Again, how is it that the least of these refers to those who have been victimizing others?

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

Please note that the reason why the next 2 responses were blocked. It was to limit the conversation on a moderated board. Limiting the number of exchanges is a reasonable practice. Other comments were allowed.

May 15

To Jim Heetderks and his May 15 response justifying corporations paying as little taxes as they can. This appeared in the blogpost about churches paying taxes in Heidelblog. 

Jim,
I have to disagree over everybody keeping one’s taxes at a minimum. Such a view is one that puts self first over the needs of the community. Such a view follows the maximize one’s profits way of life. And we should note that when everybody is maximizing their own profits, the only ethic that remains is don’t get caught. And what most who live by the maximizing of one’s own profits maxim have difficulty with is understanding how when too many people live that way, our way of life becomes not just unsustainable, it becomes self-sabotaging. For eventually, the unpaid bills do catch up. Our problems with an uncontrolled national debt and a crumbling infrastructure along with diminishing safety nets illustrate that point. And my point is also proved by more than one historical example.

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

To R. Scott Clark's May 15 response defending churches  not paying taxes because their members are already taxed as individuals. This was part of the discussion on the blogpost about churches paying taxes in Heidelblog.

R. Scott Clark,
And the Church enjoys gov’t provided services, which is my point in the first place. And please realize that there is plenty profit in certain churches. And some of those services are required because people have joined together in the Church corporate body. So if the Church is not to be taxed, should church employees be taxed?

As for businesses, can business owners claim the same double taxation that Churches do. After all, don’t businesses contribute to the tax base by the taxes they withhold from their employees? And since businesses provide such tax revenue, some reason that these businesses have already paid their dues.

I understand the tax issue, the sensitivity over it, and how much of our money goes to taxes. At the same time, perhaps our feelings about taxes would be somewhat mitigated if we had more control over how our tax revenues are spent. Whether one is on the political right or the socialist left, note that liberals are left out of the mix here, there is a consensus, for different reasons, that our gov’t is out of control.

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

This Comment to David Robertson's blogpost calling on God  to bless America was finally published and thus is not blocked.

May 16

To David Robertson and his blogpost calling on God to bless America. This appeared in the Wee Flea blog

Being an American, an anti-capitalist leftist, and one who comes from the Reformed theological position, I have a different take on the points being made here. 

Point #1: God has blessed America.  But the same can be said of every nation. Every nation has come into existence because of God's allowance and blessing. But we should challenge something said in this point. We should question whether America has been a bastion of freedom and liberty. America is not just a nation, it also currently controls the largest empire. And whether America is that vast bastion of freedom  must be tested both within its national borders as well as within the borders of its empire. And when people of color still struggle to gain liberty and freedom here, and where those from the LGBT community can still be harassed and fired from their jobs within the US national border, we should look apprehensively at the freedoms afforded to all within the confines of our empire to see if we are that bastion of freedom and liberty we claim to be. And when measuring the freedoms and liberty within the confines of our empire, we should remember that liberty - equality = privilege. And the existence of privilege is no indicator of the presence of liberty and freedom.

Point #2: God Continues To Bless America. But the same can be said of every nation. And we have to ask whether His blessing is more apparent in the plethora of environments and teachers in a nation that has religious freedom than in a nation that still has believers despite varying degrees of persecution. In addition, we have to ask what kind of blessing it is when God's people seek to marginalize those in the LGBT community rather that to rely solely on evangelism to address sexually immoral behaviors. This attempt at marginalization is part of a larger effort made by Christians to exercise varying degrees of control over society.

Point #3: God Bless America because 'all is not well' here. Can fully agree with that but the diagnosis will forever be true of America and every nation. In addition, we should note why God should bless America. It can only be because He has chosen to show mercy to it for we, like all other nations, certainly do not deserve His blessing.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost repeating Denny Burk's contention that Jesus' reference to the least of these from the parable of the sheep and the goats. This appeared in the Acton blog.

When one reads the parable of the sheep and the goats, one has to question Burk's interpretation and application. For while Jesus talks about the sheep as those who have helped the most marginalized in society who have no way of repaying those showing the kindness, at least some of whom Burk regards as the least of these have been involved in the marginalization of others.

We might also want to see with Burk's interpretation whether we are called to only fellow believers who are marginalized. Is that what Jesus taught? Is that what the apostles taught.

A final point to be made is that Burk's interpretation of who the least of these are continues a Christian reaction to make the issue of how should society react to same-sex marriage and other issues involving those from the LGBT community solely about Christians and the travails they will face if full equality is extended to those in the LGBT community. This degree of self-absorption by my fellow Christians does not seem to  neatly fit into any of the parables Jesus taught.

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

To Elise Hilton and  her blogpost on big government, free markets and how the American dream can turn into a nightmare. This appeared in the Acton blog.

This reference to 'Big Government' seems to be a knee-jerk reaction. The same can be said of the reaction to 'free markets.' For regardless of the ethics practiced by big government, the size of the government determines its moral status. Big government, by virtue of its size, is bad.

Similarly, regardless of the behavior of free markets, these markets are deemed good because they are free. Such a view of markets does not consider the plight of all the stakeholders involved when these markets operate. One only needs to know that free markets are good, regardless of how they affect all of their stakeholders.

And here is the problem. Behavior is no longer the measure of the moral status of either markets or government. In addition, as amorphous a description that the word big provides for governments, such governments are spoken of as if they were a monolith. Reducing the value of government to one measurement, that is size, leads us to engage in all-or-nothing thinking patterns that, intellectually speaking, are not challenging. In fact, once we know the size of government, without knowing anything else, we know to condemn it. This is why the reaction to big government at the beginning of this comment is called a knee-jerk reaction. In addition, such a mentality takes for granted all of the government's work to provide an adequate infrastructure in which the free markets operate.

And as for the American dream, the more this dream is thing-oriented, then, according to Martin Luther King Jr, the longer we will have to tolerate racism, economic exploitation, and war. And that is our problem. We are a think-orieted society. And that is driven by the American Dream.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 4, 2015

Feb 6

To David Robertson and his blogpost reviewing American Sniper The comment has been stuck in the limbo of awaiting moderation. This post appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

I would also add that the model of thought Chris Kyle’s father taught him is not Christian. This strict division of people into sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs denies the sinfulness of everybody and the complexity of people and situations. Finally, this model taught Chris to only see who America was affected by the actions of others and not the other way around.

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

Feb 23

To the comment section debate on the Wee Flea's blogpost about the number of Christians being martyred each year. The debate was between Brent and David Robertson. The later is the writer of the blog. This appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

Brent seemed to be intent on setting a trap and David Robertson kind of fell into it. But Robertson has some valid concerns about Brent and that he doesn't like the number of those killed in the first place. What can be gained here is that Muslim persecution of Christians isn't devastating as how some who use the numbers wish to imply. In addition, we need to be fair, we need to see where Christian supported gov't policies, regardless of the gov't, had persecuted Muslims whether because of the religion itself or because they were caught up in something political.

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

Feb 25

To Denny Burk and his blogpost about consent and 50 shades of grey. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.

Mutual consent by participating adults is also a legal issue, not just a moral issue. And if we left it at that, we could better share how God's Word applies to the sexual orientations and practices which our cultures accepts. It's when we start legislating, that we've stepped over the line.

BTW, shouldn't we be asking ourselves whether we ourselves are obsessed with sex when we write so much about it but neglect to pay adequate attention many of the important problems in today's world?

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

To Eric's Feb 25 comment attacking me for being like a pharisee from the parable of the two men praying because I have challenged some conservatives and their thinking. His comment appeared with Bradley Birzer's blogpost on ideology and mass murder. This blogpost appeared on the Imaginative Conservative blog

Eric,
First, I've been up front in my above comment about the sins of the French Revolution as well as those of Lenin et. al. Please note that not all Marxists, Socialists, Communists are the same and there is plenty of historical documentation to show that. It is a historical mistake to equate the Soviet Union's Communism with Marx. And note that the key word there is 'equate.'

In addition, I have been up front here in saying I am a sinner who talks to fellow sinners. Now you have a choice. You either can admit that you are a fellow sinner too and thus what you say against me shouldn't discredit what I say anymore than your sinfulness would discredit what you say, or you can claim to be superior to me.

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

To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost criticizing Obama's telling of some of Christianity's dark times in history at the National Prayer Breakfast. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The anger exhibited here by Buchanan is simply not Christian. It isn't how the apostles reacted when accusation were made against them. And it isn't how Jesus reacted when He faced accusations. And here, we should note Jesus' reaction foremost because He, not His followers, are the ones who make Christianity special. We, His followers, are sinners who must pray for forgiveness on a constant basis. 

Thus, to point our sins doesn't challenge the legitimacy of Christianity and the Gospel. After all, we aren't the ones who lived without sin, died a substitutionary death on the cross, and rose again from the dead. Our sins are the reason why God sent His Son into the world in the first place. That is why Paul said in Romans 3:27 that our boasting is 'excluded' because we are saved by faith in someone else than ourselves.

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

Feb 27

To Joe Carter and his blogpost description of the different kinds of patriotism and love of country one can have. This appeared in the Acton blog.


A few points need to be mentioned. First, I don't think this fully explains the differences in patriotism between people. For example, Pat Buchanan made the same claim about Obama as Guiliana did. Why did he make that claim? It was because Obama does not, according to Buchanan, recognize either our civilization or Christianity as being superior over their counterparts. Carter's projection that Giuliani's patriotism includes a belief in American Exceptionalism shows his own leaning as well as the expectations of what some have in determining the patriotism of others. 

According to Buchanan, proof of Obama's inability to see our superiority was seen in his willingness to list some of Christianity's past sins during the National Prayer Breakfast. And yet, Obama has demonstrated his belief in American Exceptionalism in both his public declarations and his policies. Thus, identifying the differences between the patriotism of people like both Giuliani and Buchanan and that of Obama becomes problematic. People like both Giuliani and Buchanan share old school, common core beliefs in American Exceptionalism, And we should note that belief in this Exceptionalism comes with baggage. That baggage includes a sense of entitlement to privileges which should be denied to others and the embracing of an active form of authoritarianism. The latter says that the exceptional one has the right, and perhaps even the duty,  to exercise control over others. And we should note that Obama has demonstrated both that sense of entitlement and that embracing of authoritarianism--though the latter is done to perhaps a lesser degree than what Giuliani and Buchanan do.

Now Carter makes two mistakes here and the first one revolves around the post-authentic label he uses. For while Obama refused to wear a flag pin after 9-11 because he didn't see it as being an authentic show of patriotism, Carter labels Obama as being post-authentic rather than Obama's perception of wearing the flag pin as being post-authentic. From that label, Carter distinguishes two kinds of patriotism. The authentic kind that relies on past traditions as guides for determining how one should make the necessary changes to the nation. The other, using Jonah Goldberg as a reference, post-authentic patriotism that is, relies on government to change the country because government is better than the people it serves.

In other words, Carter ends up with the age-old conservative view that we are in a battle between progressive big government vs its people--and we should note that, according to some conservatives, adding the word 'progressive' to big government is redundant. Such is an oversimplified view of the relationship between government and its people. And it is so because this authentic or conservative viewpoint assumes that elite rule only emanates the public sector. There is no recognition here of private sector elite rule over the nation. So Carter and Goldberg's view here understandably assumes an alien relationship between government and its people. It is understandable because government is rarely if ever seen as a possible democratic tool of its people. And though in many cases it isn't, it has the real potential to be.

But what is patriotism? Must patriotism include the belief in the superiority and exceptionalism of one's nation? If so, the real question that is begged here is that patriotism is a trait to be desired and honored. What else is left unsaid is what American traditions should be used as guides for the future. This is an important point because not all have experienced America in the same way.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost suggestion on how churches can help prevent people from being victims of predatory loans. This appeared on the Acton blog.

Yes, it's a great ministry and the idea is worthy of being practiced by other churches. But one question that arises is, with all of the other demands made on Churches and with all of the people in such need, can church created credit unions help enough people? But an even larger question looms here. Why can't the Church also demand that the Government steps in to alleviate the exploitation? For though churches can help, unlike government they are not the representatives of the people. So it seems that the people's should be representatives should also be involved.

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

March 1

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about how a college could lose its accreditation and thus access to federal loans for student because of these college's biblical on homosexuality. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

The issue here isn't about our religious freedoms or our view of a particular set of sins. The issue here is whether a college that is receiving federal aid is potentially participating in the marginalization of a rightfully protected group of citizens. So perhaps the problem isn't the college's opposition to homosexuality per se. Perhaps the real problem is that the college has made an inadequate statement about homosexuality in that it doesn't distinguish how it believes homosexuality should be regarded personally from a Christian perspective from how it believes homosexuals should be viewed by society.

This is where the past context provided by many conservative Christians has produced a pendulum swing resulting in an oversensitivity about and overprotectiveness for homosexuals.

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

There was a March 3 comment to a post on the Imaginative Conservative that has now been posted. So the comment that was below is now deleted here. You can see the comment at the link below:

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/03/progressively-redefining-human-nature.html

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 18, 2015

Feb 5

The status of the comment below has been changed from awaiting moderation to published.

To David Robertson and his blogpost reviewing the movie American Sniper. This appeared in the Wee Flea blog.

Just wanted to know if you read the book too. One of the reviews of this movie I read noticed a real difference between how the movie depicted Chris Kyle’s approach to war and killing and that which was written in the book.

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

Feb 12

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about the changing laws on marriage. His blogpost points to an article by Stella Morabito that reports on the coming doom for the legalization of same-sex marriages. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Citing instances of and supporting statements for practices all of which have been in existence for much of man's sinful existence as evidence for an "I told you so" from Conservative Christians concerning the results for allowing same-sex marriage  is more an instance of venting than sound reasoning. It certainly appeals to the choir, but it is seen as not having any credibility by those outside the choir. In short,  such is simply an appeal for restoring positions of power to the Conservative Christian consensus over culture and society. And what is really discrediting to the Gospel to many outsiders is our obsession with these messages of doom regarding same-sex marriage, especially by those who pride themselves on their church not taking social stands while saying nothing about the exploitation of people and the environment by our current economic system and about how our government wants to conduct wars with impunity.

In the end, Christians who are obsessed with the changing laws regarding same-sex marriage, whether they admit it or not, are more concerned with Christian privilege in society where Christians have various levels of control over society and its laws and mores than anything else. What scares them is sharing society with unbelievers as equals. Remember if the sin from I Cor 5 was not even heard of among the Gentiles, how is it that many of the extreme sexual practices listed in Stella's article will ever gain enough popular support to become part of the norm in society?

The all-or-nothing thinking, scared-straight approach that says the definition of marriage in society must follow the Christian definition or all variations of marriage will eventually become part of the status quo can only be seen as manipulative. Also, the percentages in Stella's article about nonmonogamous same-sex marriages is disputed by other data.

Should we oppose the practice of same-sex marriage? Of course. But why not depend on evangelism alone to do that? We should note that those Christians from the past who have sought privileged positions to control society stated a pendulum swing so any restrictions we might encounter in preaching the Gospel is part of the same swinging of the pendulum.

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

The following blocked comment is the epitome of why this series appears on this blog. It points to the filtering of information performed by some Conservatives.

Feb 16

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the ISIS slaughter of 21 Egyptian Christians. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

The story is too sad for words. We should also note that IS represents criminal insanity rather than any religion.

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

Feb 17

To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost quote of a scientist complaining about group think among climate scientists. This appeared in Heidelblog

So without any details, we can say that this person's grievance is legitimate and that science stands on one side while group think warns us about climate change? That kind of reasoning reveals one's predispositions. Where's the objectivity here?

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on incarceration rates and crime reduction. This appeared in the Acton Blog.


Consider then that America incarcerates more people than any other country. But also consider that the incarceration rate for Blacks is higher than that for Whites. And also consider that that disparity is due to an inequitable enforcement of drug laws. At this point, let's stop. How does Carter's Theft Island fit into our current circumstances where Theft Island was made of some who were genetically predisposed to committing one theft per year while our jails have disproportionate rate of Blacks incarcerated for drug related crimes though Whites use drugs at the same rate?

Let's also look at the fact that life for former prisoners lends itself to recidivism because of the difficulties these people have in obtaining meaningful, livable salary employment in such a tough job market and housing--in other words, the some of the same conditions that might have contributed to the initial crime, conviction, and incarceration. In addition, the same  legal system that has disproportionately incarcerated Blacks and other minorities is still in operation. Then consider people who have committed small crimes who, sometimes either inadvertently or in order to live, continue to commit small crimes and are thus locked away for the rest of their lives.

Finally consider those who have committed fraud or money laundering or some other major financial crime are counted as untouchable by criminal laws because of the economic influence these people have. Where is the insistence that to reduce those crimes, one must convict and incarcerate them?

Just once, I would like a Conservative to write extensively about our justice system by first checking out people's lives rather than just by applying their logical powers of deduction.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on unemployment and suicide. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Too many times when someone says that unemployment is a spiritual problem, they mean it is just the problem of the unemployed person. It is tragic shame that nobody considers whether the number of unemployed here is also a sign of a spiritual problem of either the economic system being used or the people running and benefiting the most from the system.