Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blog For January 4, 2023

 Dec 15

To Heidelblog and Anthony Esolen regarding Esolen's article and the part of that article that was quoted in Heidelblog on the alleged effects of the Obergefell decision on the attitudes and behaviors of our young people regarding sexual orientation and transgenderism.

Anthony Esolen's full article can be found at:

    https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2022/11/26/the-trainwreck-of-white-collar-sympathy/

So according to the logic employed by Anthony Esolen, we should reverse the Establishment Clause from the First Amendment because that would normalize Islam, Hinduism, and other religions including Satanism. That is if we are to employ Esolen's logic.

At the same time, what isn't covered by his article is the abuse that the LGBT community has had to endure because being seen as unnatural or perverted has given the government and society permission to marginalize that community for centuries. But we who are normal or who are considered to be natural in our affection don't know anything aboutthe effects of that marginalization. And  because we haven't lived through and with the effects of marginalization, the experiences of those who have been marginalized are nothing more than abstract concepts and so  those effects are not meaningful for us.

And when in nature, around 1,500 species exhibit same-sex behavior (SSB), why are we so insistent on using the law to impose our religious views on unbelievers?

Finally, at the same time, Esolen does not account for the effects of being marginalized. Effects like being clinically depressed, becoming suicidal, or being persecuted, beaten, or murdered for being perceived as a threat to society because one is unnatural. And so he looks to scapegoat the Obergefell decision for a host of effects on kids. Yes, there are some reactions in transgenderism and the support for it that have gone too far. But such is natural when a long-standing social injustice is being addressed.

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

Dec 22

To Heidelblog and Todd Pruitt for the part of Pruitt's article that expressed agreement with the Nashville Statement on human sexuality.

Todd Pruitt's full article:

    https://cbmw.org/2022/11/16/why-i-changed-my-mind-on-the-nashville-statement/

The Nashville Statement:

    https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement

I struggle with a couple of articles that are in the Nashville Statement. I struggle with some of them because they are made as absolute statements regardless of context. 

For example, does Article 10 imply that Christians cannot support a person's legal right to engage in same-sex marriage or transgenderism in society? We certainly cannot support same-sex marriage or transgenderism in the Church. And our evangelism must call on those who would engage in homosexual immorality or transgenderism to repent. But if we support a person's legal right to practice religious faiths other than the Christian faith, why can't we support a person's legal right to be joined in a same-sex marriage or to seek a change in gender?

Likewise, the validity of Article 7 depends on the context in which it is used. When speaking about our new life in Christ, certainly identifying as a homosexual is at odds with that new life. However, if our new life in Christ becomes our only identity, then we can no longer identify with the tax collector from the parable of the two men praying. Can we only identify with that tax collector once, or can those who struggle with SSA identify as being homosexual as their own personal way of saying that they are like the tax collector from that parable who is in need of God's mercy in contrast with the Pharisee who not only sees no need to beg for mercy. And that Pharisee also thanks God that he is not a sinner like the tax collector. The same principle applies to Article 13 as it pertains to gender dysphoria.

We should note that in Article 12, our sinful desires must be put to death on a daily basis. Also we should note that, as James 2 says, we stumble in many ways. And we simply don't know enough about what causes SSA or gender dysphoria, in addition that many of us struggle with having sinful heterosexual desires, to say that for each Christian who is SSA that their battle in resisting  SSA is a past battle that they have won.

The Nashville State has good points to make, but it is not inerrant. And requiring too strict an adherence to it could cause some of us to hurt or even sabotage the efforts of fellow believers who are struggling with internal battles that we can't relate to even though we have our own battles to deal with.

Finally, when we reduce the new moral revolution to sexual issues, it reveals part of who we are to the world. The new moral revolution has several concerns, many of them involve social justice issues. The protests after the murder of George Floyd illustrated that. The concern about climate change and the ongoing battle to secure full equality for those in the LGBT community are concerns of the new moral revolution as well. Certainly, we as Christians should lament over the increased promiscuity and the other forms of sexual immorality that we see around us. But there are other moral issues that are just as important, if not more so, with which society is dealing. And while society has been making positive advances in working to resolve some moral issues, there are some losing battles with other moral issues.

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

Jan 3

To Heidelblog and Kaylee White for the part of White's article quoted by Heidelblog. Her article claims that current government is trying to hide its disdain for religious Americans.

Kaylee White's full article can be found at:

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/303-creative-colorado-tries-to-hide-disdain-for-religious-americans

The reasoning in the question referred to in the excerpt above is neither radical nor new. It is the same reasoning applied to restore equality to previously marginalized groups. That because of past or current marginalization, some groups are protected while other groups are not. And who is objecting to such reasoning? Could it be those who wish to continue the old status quo? Could it be those who wish to move the LGBT community back to the margins of society?

Besides, it isn't speech that is being targeted here. Rather, it is access to the free market that is the issue. The issue here is about stopping  part of what was happened during Jim Crow from being exercised against LGBT community. To say the focus is free speech is misleading.

From the beginning, the legalization of same-sex marriage has been challenged by religiously conservative Christian leaders and influencers because these Christians claimed that such legalization would infringe on the freedoms of Christians. In reality, it has never been our freedoms that has been our concern. Instead, it was the fear that our ability to promote the marginalization of the LGBT community in society would be infringed on. And what we seem to struggle with recognizing is that the more we insist on marginalizing the LGBT community in society, the more we confirm what Critical Theory and Post Modernism make of religion in general and thus of Christianity in particular. And that unnecessarily harms the reputation of the Gospel.

In addition, the kind of complaint lodged in White's article forgets the historical context of designating the LGBT community as a group in need of protection. For none of what us Christians suffering from in the efforts to protect the LGBT community compares with the suffering that many of us or our ancestors have imposed on the LGBT community for centuries.

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

To Bradley Birzer and his article that attempts to define conservatism in a way that makes it the ultimate ism or approach to thinking and living. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The above article is just another attempt to make conservatism all that its followers want it to be. And so Birzer is starting to make conservatism into a naturalistic religion by which its followers can claim to be exceptional to those who are not conservatives. According To Birzer, conservatism is the ultimate ideal. But because of that, conservatism deals with the immanence-transcendence that we also attribute to God. And that is part of what makes conservatism a religion.

Another part of what makes conservatism a naturalistic religion is that it has a monopoly on truth where truth can be found. And that, according to Birzer, distinguishes it from liberalism, socialism, and corporatism. According to Birzer, it seems that we have everything to learn from conservatism and nothing to learn from any other isms. Besides making its followers arrogant, that would make conservatism the sole proprietor of truth and that causes theological problems for those religious faiths that are based on revelation. That is because being the sole proprietor would make conservatism the judge of all revelation. 

But there is also a problem according to Birzer. That is t how can we conserve what we did not practice? Note how Birzer states that 'true conservatism' is rarely understood or practiced. And if one neither understands nor practices conservatism, how can one judge the other isms?

There is one other characteristic that makes conservatism into a naturalistic religion. That characteristic is the forever attempt to define conservatism in a way that makes it the be all and end all of how to live and think. That forever attempt to make conservatism omniscient also contributes to making conservatism a naturalistic religion.

A Turf War Attack On CRT

 It is as if religiously conservative Christianity was the Titanic and Critical Theories, in this case Critical Race Theory, were an iceberg. The Titanic has struck the iceberg and the captain and crew of the Titanic are trying to cut their losses, but the water keeps pouring in. In the end of the, in this case, podcast, rather than an article, what was a discussion that had positive contributions to make turned into a sinking ship.

On the April 21st Mortification of Spin podcast (click here), Carl Trueman (click here for a bio) and Todd Pruitt (click here for a bio) talk with Gerry McDermott (click here for a bio) about his new book, Race And Covenant (click here for link to the book).

Initially, their discussion concerns this book, which consists of a compilation of essays by some impressive scholars and others of different races about race and God's relationships with nations in general. Spoiler alert here, though the credentials of many of the contributors are impressive and they should be read, most if not all of the contributors have conservative roots and thus the book does not present a balanced approach to the issues of race and racism.

The basic tenet of McDermott's book is that God has a kind of covenant relationship with nations where He will reward those that do well and punish those that do evil. McDermott claims that God does not just interact with people as individuals, He interacts with collectives of people called nations.

That covenant relationship, however, is not like the relationship that God had with Old Testament Israel in that there is no formal written pact between God and any given nation. Rather, the covenant relationship that McDermott is referring to consists of the general principles that God rewards and punishes nations according to their works. And that God will hold every nation accountable.

In the Reformed world, such a concept is consistent with the Transformationalists who believe that the Church should be working to transform the world, including its cultures and its political structures, but not so much with those holding to 2 Kingdom Theology because they tend to believe that the Church, as an institution, should only be involved with preaching the Gospel and disciplining its members.

 An implication, which is explicitly stated in the podcast, that comes with McDermott's premise is that Christians should be aspiring to loftier goals for their nation than what unbelievers aspire to because God has these national covenant relationships with nations. In their discussion, they agreed that such aspirations do not imply the desire to install Theonomy with the kind of expectation that we are then safe from Christian political overreach. 

 If only that was the case. We don't live in a Black-White world where the only way Christians can try too hard to control government is to have the government respond to their concerns is with theonomy. Jeff Halper has provided insights on a helpful distinction between an ethnocracy and a democracy (click here). Though the term 'democracy' is not included in the link, Halper has defined it in terms of a state of being in his book, An Israeli In Palestine. He defines democracy there as where a given nation belongs to all of its citizens equally. An ethnocracy is where a given nation belongs to one particular group more than any other group despite the use of democratic processes in choosing leaders.

Thus, Christians do not have to force Theonomy on a nation for the nation to belong to them more than to any other group. And thus by denouncing Theonomy, those in the podcasts did nothing alleviate fears that Christians would not seek too much power in our nation.

At this point, the podcast went ok. We should recognize that conservatives have a significant amount to bring to the table regarding race. And thus one should not dismiss McDermott's book. Rather, one should read it to see the perspectives the writers in his book bring to the discussion on race.

However, things took a wrong turn when McDermott was asked about Critical Race Theory (CRT). There, the graciousness that McDermott rightfully demands for the conservative contributors to his book was not shown to CRT. Whatever good McDermott said was in CRT was also in the Gospel. And since McDermott saw CRT as being destructive and offering nothing else that has not been offered in other places, McDermott and the podcast hosts of Trueman and Pruitt denounced CRT as being a false religion that is toxic to the discussion on racism.

It might be helpful to read this link and that link to compare what the 3 of them said that CRT teaches. What they said included:

1. Racism is ordinary and systemic
2. Race is and is not an artificial construct
3. There is a unique voice of color that must be assumed not only that it is competent, but that it is superior to the voices of whites
4. That the liberal order, which includes enlightenment principles, neutral principles of law, and merit, is oppressive
5. That the color blindness taught by Martin Luther King Jr is oppressive
6. White privilege is a reality and is at the heart of systemic oppression
7. Minorities should not be expected to fit into American society
   

 Now realize that the above list is not just a list that they claim CRT teaches, it is a list of teachings that they are critical of. 

The issue in the first item in the list is whether they are disagreeing with whether racism is systemic. For it seems that that claim should be based on observation and whether racism can be seen in at least some of the different systems relied on by society. Here, all we need to do is see if racism is systemic is whether racial prejudice is exercised by law enforcement, the judicial system, the economic system, and in voting. For it seems obvious that we see racial discrimination exercised in those areas if not in other systems our society depends on. An if that is the case, where is the complaint' that CRT has really nothing to offer on the discussion on racism?

Here we should note that McDermott does not deny that racism has been and still is a significant problem here. In fact, McDermott sees our nation being punished by God for our nation practicing slavery and Jim Crow. But the question is whether racism in our nation is still systemic.

The issue regarding the second item is whether CRT teaches that the concept of race is both is and is not a biological concept. McDermott claims that CRT is inconsistent on this point.

The issue regarding the third item is to what extent is the unique voice of color so much more informative than the voices of whites regarding racism and its solutions.

The issue regarding the fourth issue is not just how accurate is the claim that the liberal order is oppressive, but why is such a claim being made. Is it being made by observation? If so, how accurate is that observation? Here, we might want to listen to the unique voice of color since they are experiencing oppression. They might be seeing harmful things in what we have taken for granted.

The issues in the fifth item do McDermott et. al. rightly understand Martin Luther King Jr. when he talked about color blindness? Is not mentioning the race of those who oppress and those who are oppressed what MLK meant when talking about color blindness? In addition, do McDermott  et. al. understand that MLK stated that racism is part of a triplet of evil that included economic exploitation and militarism? Do McDermott and friends understand the continuity that exists between CRT and what MLK both spoke about and experienced? After all, MLK worked for justice during Jim Crow with its laws and culture. MLK was working not just to change people's hearts, but also to peacefully overthrow oppressive systems and laws.

The issue with the sixth item is whether McDermott and other conservative allies deny that white privilege exists. I wonder because I finally began to understand what white privilege is by listening to a religiously and politically Black conservative  talk about where he sees white privilege in his teaching profession.

The issue with the seventh item is whether minorities feel like they can fit into American society. Here, we should expect various statements that both agree with and disagree with that claim.

McDermott and the others then go on to claim how CRT is a religion that preaches a false Gospel. And the question here is whether any nonChristian ideology presents itself as a religion given the approach that McDermott, Trueman, and Pruitt take to CRT.

My own take on CRT is that like other approaches to undoing social injustices it promotes a phobic approach. Yes, it has a lot to contribute to the discussion on racism if not the redefinition of racism. For CRT teaches that racism is the combining of racial prejudice, which CRT states that everyone has, along with social and institutional power that is oppressive against people of color. To see how social power can be oppressive, one should listen to James Baldwin's argument while debating William F. Buckley (click here for the debate and go to the 14:02 mark of the YouTube video). Granted that Baldwin's argument is based on his life experiences during Jim Crow, the issue is whether all of what he has experienced has been eliminated with the dismantling of Jim Crow.

In saying that CRT promotes a phobic approach is not to disagree with all that CRT. It is asking whether some of the approaches to undoing racial oppression is based on all-or-nothing thinking that prevents us from making distinctions between those factors that are accidentally associated with the racial oppression people of color have faced from those factors that are contributors to that same racial oppression. In other words, does CRT throw out the baby with the bathwater in its approach to racial oppression? If it does, then aren't McDermott, Trueman, and Pruitt are taking the same throw the baby out with the bathwater approach to CRT that CRT is taking to the status quo.

In the end, by taking their all-or-nothing analysis of CRT, it seems that McDermott and some other conservatives see themselves in a turf war over the narrative of racism with CRT. After all, McDerott, Trueman, and Pruitt are very disturbed over the number of Christians who believe that CRT has much to contribute to understanding and dismantling racism And the problem with that approach is that it tries to compel us to either accept what conservatives like McDermott have to say about racism or what CRT has to say  take a hybrid approach. With the hybrid approach, we would think for ourselves by trying to take the best insights from both groups. McDermott and friends do not want any person, believer or non-believer, to see CRT as having anything significant to say about racism in this nation and how to provide at least a partial solution to it.

Controversies And The Necessary Dangers Of Deduction

Ever since the Apostles have died off, because they did not see the  2nd coming of Jesus Christ the Church has had to employ deduction in answering some questions and controversies. Why? Because as time marched on, the Church faced new controversies and questions that were not directly addressed by the teachings of Christ or of the Apostles. The controversy over the Arian view of Christ is an example. Arius, and his supporters, argued that if Christ was begotten by the Father, then Christ did not exist eternally. Such would then contradict His deity. And if Christ was not God, then our salvation in Christ is called into question for it is only the Lord who saves.

Part of the problem in combating the Arian teachings on Christ was that those who followed it did so because they believed that they were being faithful to what the Scriptures literally said. Thus, in how they defined Christ, the Arians felt that they were faithful to the Apostles and Christ because they were most faithful to the language used by Christ and the Apostles. Athanasius, on the other hand, employed logic to deduce that Christ had to be eternal. Athanasius reasoned that because God is eternal, that His begetting of His Son Jesus is also eternal. Here is where deduction was correctly applied to defeat a misunderstanding caused by literalism.

However, deduction can cause problems as well. In determining what should become the law of the land and what shouldn't, some religiously conservative Christians reason that since rulers are to punish evil as stated in Romans 13:1-7 (click here for the passage), God's laws should, either in part or in whole, should become the laws of the land. As a result, we see some Christians conclude that the government must punish the LGBT community because of their sexual practices. Not only that, they want the government to punish all forms of adultery. Their powers of deduction are limited or selective however in that many of these same Christians don't want those who engage in economic exploitation to be punished. Nor do they want those who harm the environment to be punished. Nor do they want their own countrymen who wage unjust wars to be punished. The point is, however, that they show how one can misuse deduction in interpreting the Scriptures.

This brings us to the article to be reviewed. It is actually an open letter from PCA minister Todd Pruitt (click here for a bio) to a fellow PCA member Andrew White who is running to become Governor of Texas. While campaigning, White has said that he both personally objects to abortion but would do nothing but to recognize Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. White also said that he would not let his personal faith interfere with how he governs. Todd Pruitt's open letter uses deduction to challenge White's position (click here for the open letter).

What bothers Pruitt about White's abortion position is that Pruitt believes that White's personal objection to abortion has to do with White's belief that the unborn child is a human life and thus abortion would be taking an innocent human's life. Thus, Pruitt reasons that anyone, especially any Christian, who believes that about the unborn child should object to abortion for it is the taking of human life and thus murder. Pruitt then concludes that since God's Word is important to White because White is a ruling elder in the same conservative denomination that Pruitt belongs, that White is bound to oppose abortion because God's Word does not speak of the life in the womb in any other way than that it is fully human.

Now while Pruitt's logic in his open letter is flawless, he makes a possible error in his claim that the Scriptures do not recognize the life in the womb to be anything else but fully human. In the OPC committee report on abortion, the minority position written by Paul Woolley questions whether the fertilized egg is a human person and thus not fully human (click here for the full report from the committee). Here we should note that the OPC is a far more conservative denomination than the conservative denomination of the PCA. And yet, in its minority report, there is a disagreement on whether the fertilized egg is fully human. And Woolley not only calls such a notion 'rationalistic folly,' he cites an admission from the majority report that says the following:

There is no way to demonstrate, either from Scripture or from science or from some combination of the two, that the unborn child is a human person from the point of conception.

Here we should note that Woolley was not saying that all cases of abortion are not sinful for he wrote that some cases of abortion are. He was simply challenging whether all cases of elective abortion are sinful. 

So the question becomes whether Pruitt either overstated what the Scriptures say about life in the womb or he is misusing deduction to compel White to change his political position on abortion. As one who believes that human life begins at conception, it seems that we should always be willing to reevaluate the definition of human life. At the same time, one should remain faithful to how one sees the scriptural definition of human life.

Are We Christians Trying Too Hard To Fit A Stereotype? Part III

For the near future, the articles posted on Fridays will consist of reviews of Christian writings from 2 perspectives. The first perspective will be that of the view of the role of the Church in America as described by the report, The Crisis Of Democracy. This report is a view of the role of the Church from a liberal viewpoint. This perspective is an observation of the past which was interrupted during the protest years of the 1960s. That time was described by the report as having an 'excess of democracy.' And that view says the following (click here for the source):

In the past, those institutions which have played the major role in the indoctrination of the young in their rights and obligations as members of society have been the family, the church, the school, and the army. The effectiveness of all these institutions as a means of socialization has declined severely. The stress has been increasingly on individuals and their rights, interests, and needs, and not on the community and its rights, interests, and needs.

 The second perspective is an observation, not an ideological declaration, about the Church made from the Left in Russia prior to its October, 1917 Revolution--we should note that Russia also underwent a February, 1917 Revolution. This perspective was written by Vlad (a.k.a., Vladimir Lenin) and it went like this (click here for the source):

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.

The reason for reviewing Christian writings from these two perspectives is to determine whether today's writings show that the Church has changed since the times in which those observations were made. And for the record, I just want to say that I am not a fan of Lenin regardless of how I refer to him.

Today's review will be of an audio blog show run by Aimee Byrd, Carl Trueman, and Todd Pruitt (click here for bios). The subject for this particular show dealt with the question of whether the election of Donald Trump was part of God's plan (click here for the show). 

If we go outside the purpose of this particular series, there is a lot good discussion with some sound points made by the 3. In fact, I would recommend that people, especially Christians, listen to this particular show. One of the reasons for recommending this show is the post election division that certainly exists both in our nation and the Church.

But the purpose of this series is to review the content of what Christians are saying in the light of the two quotes listed above. And here, there isn't much content to review. What this series could comment on are the statements made that the best that Christians could hope for from a Trump Presidency are a governmental restraint on the progress of the new sexual revolution and that the religious liberties of religiously conservative Christians will not be infringed on. Note that these are hopes, not necessarily expectations.

Thus, what is not mentioned, which happens to be Vlad's concern, is the exploitation of workers. That concern is not even on the radar in this show. And thus, what we see is another instance where Vlad's concerns that workers are not being challenged to free themselves and owners are not being challenged to end their oppression. With many of American workers living on government assistance programs in order to make ends meet with their wages while many workers from nations, particularly 3rd world nations, are trafficked and/or work in sweatshop conditions, one would think that these concerns would be mentioned especially when one of the hosts, Carl Trueman, describes himself as a hybrid of both liberalism and conservatism. But they are not.

Rather, American Christians are told to care about their purity by hoping that society changes course while not addressing these issues. It is as if individual sins are the only sins that some Christians see. Thus, societal and system sins are to be endured because they are a part of the territory. Note that that was not said during the show. But one has to wonder whether it is being suggested when the exploitation of workers was not relevant enough of an issue to be discussed. Also note that Trump was the President-elect at the time of the airing of this show.