Feb 22
To Heidelblog and Ari Schaffer for the part of Schaffer's article that reported on the Buckley Program' Eighth Annual College Student Survey.
The survey has some problems in the options provided. One major problem is that many of the categories for the choice of answers are not well-defined. For example, when asking students if they feel uncomfortable with giving a dissenting opinion to classmates or professors, the selection of answers are 'Frequently,' 'Sometimes,' 'Rarely,' and 'Never.' Three of those answers are not well-defined. In addition, 'Frequently' and 'Sometimes' are grouped as categorized as 'Often' whereas 'Rarely' and 'Never' are counted as 'Not Often.' To further complicate the issue, the mathematical definition of the word 'some' is at least 1. That could mean that when students answered 'Sometimes,' they could have meant 'Rarely' and vice-versa.
In addition, the existence of free speech is expressed in binary terms. If hate speech, and that goes undefined, is allowed, then this is counted as being an infringement on free speech and the First Amendment. But yelling 'fire' in a public space is against the law. Is that an infringement on Free Speech? Would some forms of labeling or describing people from a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity a threat to society be similar yelling 'fire' in a public place when some of those statements led to violence against those of a given race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity?
Are we aware that denying the Holocaust is illegal in some European countries? If that was the case here, would that be an infringement on the First Amendment? Is denying the existence of systemic racism in America today on par with denying the Holocaust in some European countries?
And why isn't this blog post including the efforts of Governors DeSantis and Abbott in their report on Free Speech on campuses? Why are teachers and professors afraid of talking about America's past in certain states like Florida or Texas?
Finally, without providing definitions for both socialism and capitalism, the data is insignificant. Which form of capitalism was referred to in the survey? Was it the Bretton-Woods System or Neoliberal Capitalism? This is an important question because the conservative definitions of capitalism and socialism since the Bretton-Woods system of capitalism allows for far more government intervention than Neoliberal Capitalism.
Which form of socialism was referred to in the survey? Was it Stalinism, which many Marxists do not think of as Socialism, or was it the form that emphasizes the redistribution of power to the workers? Here we should note that Germany's codetermination. laws makes Germany's economic system a hybrid of both Marxism and capitalism. Or, again, did students use the conservative definition of socialism--big government--while answering the question? Were the students who answered the question about capitalism and socialism aware of all of those distinctions?
The above findings are flawed because the survey was flawed by utilizing not well-defined terms in its answers. But that won't stop some conservatives from using the change in statistics over the years to sound the alarm and incite fear where fear is not warranted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 25
To Thaddeus Kozinski and his article that reviews what has occurred since the end of Christendom and calls for Christendom's return. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
When we look at what has blossomed since the end of Christendom, as listed in the above article, we must realize one point: what Christendom has suppressed. And when we look at what Christendom has suppressed and what has flourished in its absence, we need to ask why would we ever want a return to Christendom.
We should note in this Post Modern age, that Pre Modernism and Modernism has not totally left the world. Pre Modernism is alive and well within most of the major players who're engaged in committing atrocities today. That means that we can't scapegoat secularism for today's threats. And where we can blame secularism, we should note a common thread that is shared by those remnants of Pre Modernism that is producing atrocities: authoritarianism. And when one looks at the definition of Christendom, we need to ask if it is possible to have a Christendom that is lacking in authoritarianism.
Until we can find a form of Christendom that is void of authoritarianism, selling Christendom today should be near impossible to the outside world. In fact, if we look at how we should share society with those who believe differently, perhaps we should leave Christendom on the ash heap of history and then go on to study how we Christians can contribute to a truly pluralistic and peaceful society and world. Of course one way in which we can contribute to such a world is to tolerate all others who seek such a society and world. But such toleration means forsaking our authoritarian proclivities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joseph Mussomeli and his article on the Russian war against Ukraine. In his article, Musomelli has criticized the American involvement in the war as a search for the perfect war. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Though lessons from WW II abound on both sides of Russia's war against Ukraine, to make Hitler the focal point in trying to understand Putin is a grave error.
The lessons that abound from WW II involve Russia's history with invasions from the West and Europe's history with Imperial dreams starting with one invasion and then advancing an invasion or concession at a time. Both sensitivities are valid. And what goes unmentioned is that NATO's move eastward violated the understanding of the agreement made between Bush I and Gorbachev. Gorbachev stated that in his book, <I>The New Russia</I>.
But to understand what we can from Putin, we should keep our eyes focused on Russian history rather than turning our gaze toward Hitler. Before the October, 1917 Revolution stood the Russian Empire governed by the Tsars. For most of those Tsars, authoritarianism was to Russia what Christendom was to America. The Tsars so identified themselves with the nation of Russia that they believed that any opposition to them was a challenge to the nation itself. Lenin continued that same mentality only with using different labels such as 'proletariat' or 'revolution' for 'Russia' and 'Soviet Union' for 'Russian Empire.' Stalin was Lenin on steroids. Khrushchev brought a brief reprieve that was only repeated by his successors. And it wasn't until Gorbachev that we saw a significantly real break in Russia's authoritarianism. That authoritarianism started to resurrect itself when Yeltsin had power.
Who knows what Putin wants and what is going on in his mind? Nobody knows enough for sure, but we are seeing repeats of Russian and Soviet Union history in Putin's words and actions. And we only need to look at Putin's authoritarian rule over his own people, his history in Chechnya and Georgia, and his stated reasons, which seemed to have resembled Bush II when defending his own invasion of Iraq, for the invasion against Ukraine.
Putin is attempting to silence Russians's opposition to the war with arrests and imprisonment at home and threats and attempts at intimidation outside of Russia. Putin claims that Ukrainians are Russians. Putin, via the Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, has stated that the 'special operation' is necessary to protect Russia from Western decadence. And, btw, it is Putin who is pointing to the Nazis by claiming that he trying to de-nazify Ukraine. Putin has made references to the NATO threat to Russia from Ukraine. And Putin has reportedly written about renewing the Russian Empire. If that is true, and there is evidence that supports that in Belarus, then though Germany is safe, quite a few other nations are not. There is also the Rodney Dangerfield complaint that Putin believes that Russia gets no respect. That complaint was one of the reported reasons why Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba.
It appears that no current world leader has either read the Russell-Einstein Manifesto or, if they had remembers it. That Manifesto clearly states that in the nuclear age we have a choice between relying on war and existence. And yet, imperialism cannot be tolerated--a lesson learned from WW II. That puts us between a rock and a hard place, none of which was recognized in the above article despite the some of the good but irrelevant points it made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 7
To Scott McDermand and the first of 2 planned articles which partially layout a case for and defend the Regulative Principle of worship as promoted by the Reformers. This article was posted by Heidelblog.
There are multiple problems with the regulative principle for worship. They include:
1. The interpretation of the 2nd Commandment used to claim and defend the regulative principle goes well beyond any plain reading of the that commandment. For in that commandment, God only tells us about a certain set of objects that we cannot make as well as a worship practice that we must not employ. That is simply the plain reading of the 2nd Commandment. To say anything beyond that is to read into the Scriptures.
2. Yes, other parts of the Old Testament specify exactly how God must be worshiped, but those ways are based on both man's standing with God before Christ died and rose again and how those ways of worship were shadows of and thus what would be fulfilled and thus made useless by Christ's 1st coming. To insist on the regulative principle is to employ an Old Testament mentality on the New Testament community. Here, we should remember about what Jesus said to the woman at the well in John 4: that there will come a time when instead of having to go to Jerusalem, we must worship God in spirit and in truth.
Having said that, there is something to learn from the regulative principle. That care must be taken in how we approach the worship of God. When we are not reverent enough in how we approach the worship of God, it is because we are being presumptuous about our standing before God. For we can only stand before and worship God because of God's grace and mercy which has been shown to and showered on those who believe in Christ. Again, we are to worship God in spirit and in truth. Thus, we must worship God in reverence acknowledging our unworthiness, outside of what Christ has done for us, to worship God in His house.
3. The regulative principle was not practiced by Jesus nor by the Jews both before and when Jesus came to earth. In fact, there is no regulative principle described in the New Testament. Paul does describe how believers were coming together to worship; but that was simply a description, not an exclusive set of rules.
We should note something else here. When the regulative principle is generalized to other practices and approaches outside of worship, we, paradoxically, limit how we can use the New Testament to guide how we live when we meet circumstances and situations that were not experienced in the New Testament.
At the same time, we must remember Romans 14 when fellowshipping with fellow believers who adhere to the regulative principle as they must do the same with fellowshipping with fellow believers who abide by the normative principle. The latter says that we must refrain from worshiping and living before God in ways forbidden by God's Word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 9
To R. Scott Clark and his blog post against Christian Transformationalism because the New Testament calls us to be pilgrims and aliens, not transformers. This appeared in Heidelblog.
A weakness in Transformationalism which Clark did not point out is that, in the end, it is antithetical to democracy. In the end, it seeks a privileged position for Christianity in and over society.
It is true that we are aliens in the world, though our lifestyles might not reflect that when we are financially privileged. But what does being an alien in this world prohibit Christians from doing when interacting with the world?
There are 2 weaknesses with 2KT, which is Clark's position. The first is its failure to acknowledge that to extent that it pushes natural law on society, it too is a form of transformationalism. This is especially apparent in how it views sexual issues, especially homosexuality. That same sex behavior is demonstrated in around 1,500 species of animals shows that the natural law being pushed by 2KT is a Christian view of natural law.
The 2nd weakness of 2KT is that it prohibits the Church from speaking out as an institution against corporate sins. Corporate sins such as systemic racism, economic exploitation and classism, sexism and patriarchy, immoral wars, a renewed arms race and militarism, and destroying the earth's ability to adequately sustain human life either because of pollution and/or climate change must be visibly opposed by the Church as an institution. When the Church does not publicly speak out against these sins, it becomes complicit with them.
And though I disagree with Clark's overall position here, I do agree with him when he says that the Church is not charged to bring a golden age onto the earth. But opposing corporate sins and working for social justice does not imply that one is working for an ecclesiastical golden age. Neither does opposing corporate sins and working for social justice imply that one is working to establish a privileged place for the Church in society.
If we want to look at a good example of the Church as an institution speaking out against corporate sins, then we need to look no farther than what Martin Luther King Jr. and the SCLC did and said during the era of the Civil Rights Movement. Though King had golden age visions, what he and the SCLC opposed and what they promoted neither brought a golden age to America nor did it establish a privileged position for the Church in and over society. King and the SCLC simply opposed the sins of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism while promoting the rights and welfare of people without respect to religion. And where the Church was silent on racism, economic exploitation, and militarism back then, it was complicit with those sins just as the Church would be complicit if it didn't warn people against sexual immorality.
Of course, there is an immediate earthly advantage for the Church to be silent about corporate sins. That advantage is that that silence allows the Church to support those with wealth and power when those with wealth and power benefit from the committing of those corporate sins. But that kind of support should offend the Church since those in the Church are called to be aliens in this world.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the portion of Trueman's article that was quoted from in this particular Heidelblog post. Trueman's article challenged evangelical leaders to be as courageous as J.K. Rowling was when she claimed that trans women are not women.
Trueman's article can be found at:
https://wng.org/opinions/are-evangelical-leaders-as-courageous-as-j-k-rowling-1677156614
Carl's article contains nothing more than an authoritarian discourse aimed at refusing to distinguish those who have been helped by gender affirming care from those who are not.
It is authoritarian because it involves a kind of all-or-nothing thinking about those who have been helped from receiving some level of gender-affirming care and those who provide it. His lack of precision and making distinctions in the different kinds of treatments that children with gender dysphoria are given is another example of a kind of all-or-nothing thinking he employs. And that kind of thinking is seen in his calling people evil in an emotional rant wrapped in labels. In addition, Trueman's view of gender-affirming care do not seem to reflect J.K. Rowling on transgenderism. Rather, it seems that Trueman's mentality and approach to the subject has more in common with the critics of Rowling than Rowling herself.
If Trueman were to actually employ a rational argument, he would make meaningful distinctions like some of the ones mentioned above. If here were to employ a rational argument, he could borrow an argument from Robert Jensen, who is a leftist, who looks at the Transgender issue from a feminist perspective. In arguing against allowing males who have transgendered into females to participate in women's sports, Jensen points out that one cannot conflate gender identity with biological sex because while the former is psychological, the latter is biological--btw, that seems to be J.K. Rowling's view from what I read. Thus the two, biological sex and gender identity, could never be merged. And that those who started as biological males had a physical advantage over cisgendered females in sports.
But then again, to refuse to conflate gender identity with biological sex on a consistent basis, Trueman and others would have to admit that biological sex is not the only factor involved in one's gender identity. But such an admission would go against a conservative authoritarian mindset.
Because many people have received help from gender affirming care and because we don't know all of the factors involved with what causes people to experience gender dysphoria and seek a change in genders, we need to both talk with the awareness that when talking we are walking on thin ice while remaining firm with our Scriptural convictions that transgenderism is wrong. That means that the issue of transgenderism is complicated. But those who prefer to make authoritarian appeals view complexity in the same way that Superman regards kryptonite.
Keeping up with the times in terms of knowledge does not imply that we must change our moral beliefs or shed religiously conservative convictions. Keeping up with the times means that we need to seek wisdom and understanding in order to grapple with today's issues while remaining faithful to the Scriptures. The kind of thinking involved in authoritarianism sees little to no need to seek wisdom and understanding here.
