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

 March 15

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

Godfrey's full article is linked to below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 20

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Reformed Christian Micorcosm Of Americas Democracy

Apparently Vlad Putin is not the only one who wants to relive the glory of days gone by,  W. Robert Godfrey (click here for a bio) wants to too. Only the dreams dancing around in his head are not about Mother Russia. And he wrote about that back in 1993 (click here for the article, click there an extensive quoting of his article) and the times appear to have not changed things. The object of his affection is conservative Reformed Theology and its current status in traditionally reformed churches like the Presbyterian Church and the Christian Reformed Church.

But Godfrey's model of thought for framing the issue ironically sounds Marxist. For whereas Marx is heavily criticized by religiously conservative Christian theologians, like Godfrey, for seeing the world as a conflict between oppressors and the oppressed, Godfrey sees the status of conservative Reformed theology in his denomination, the CRC (Christian Reformed Church) and of conservative Protestantism in America as being part of the establishment or part of the disestablishment. And the article being reviewed today is about how Christians who follow conservative Reformed Theology--some ask if there is any other kind of Reformed Theology--should see their calling in today's CRC and the Presbyterian churches too.

Godfrey's article is about how true, or conservative, Reformed theologians and lay people can react to a state of having lost controlling power of their situation of the group they are in. Godfrey states that they must act as missionaries. And part of being missionaries must include both knowing their doctrine and its history as well as being kind and speaking the truth in love.

Godfrey does provide an interest insight into his perspective and approach when talking about reliance on the Reformed Tradition for their understanding of the Scriptures:

In evaluating our Reformed commitments our ultimate authority must be the Bible. At the heart of our Reformed faith is sola Scriptura. But as we study the Bible let us not be isolated from our theology and history. It is too easy for us to be stampeded by modern questions and answers in interpreting the Bible if we are not intimately acquainted with our Reformed tradition. Before we change. before we accept “new, fresh” ideas from the Bible, let us ask why our forebears thought differently. They read the Bible too! Why did they come to conclusions so far from our new ones? If Reformed people thought or did something for three hundred years or more, should there not be among Reformed people today a presumption that they were right? At least we must be sure we really understand their reading of the Bible before we reject it in favor of our own.

In particular, we need to pay special attention to the underlined part of the quote--the rest of the quote provides a context for that statement. In writing what he wrote, Godfrey demonstrates that he is very much a traditionalist--btw, traditionalists can come in all kinds of ideologies. He is a traditionalist who was and still is very much disturbed by the changes he has been witnessing. 

There is one thing we should note about traditionalists. It is that they are a mirror image of narcissists. That is because both elevate a certain time period above all others to the extent that they believe that their selected time period(s) have everything to teach those from other time periods and have little to nothing to learn from them--that statement borrows the phraseology of something Martin Luther King Jr said when speaking about Western arrogance and against the Vietnam War.

So while narcissists elevate the present over other time periods in such ways that it makes it difficult for them to learn from the past, traditionalists elevate selected times from the past in ways that makes it difficult for them to learn from the present. In short, traditionalists, and old people like myself, rely too heavily on the past to understand and respond to the present.

Having said all of that, the main point of this review of Godfrey's article has not been made yet. That main point is that by viewing intramural denominational battles as a struggle between the Establishment vs the Disestablished, Godfrey inadvertently gives a picture of today's culture wars and political scene in America. In all of these cases, Established vs. the Disestablished rather than an egalitarian approach where there is a greater, but not absolute, push for influence by collaboration and cooperation by all groups so that no group is marginalized. And if this analysis is true, we see part of the background for the conservative side of America's culture wars and political battles. It is all about ruling over others or being ruled over by them.

To a certain extent, it is more appropriate for there to be an Establishment vs. Disestablishment to exist in the Church because it is there where truth is not determined by democracy, but by revelation, by God's Word. But such should not be the case in a society that resides in a democratic setting. Yet, many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians see America's culture as the battleground for their quest to become part of America's Cultural Establishment. And with the mindset that either one is ruling over or one is ruled over even though that being ruled over can occur in a variety of ways and degrees. Of course that mindset for religiously conservative Christians like mysef is reinforced by the belief that we have God's Word on our side and thus some of us feel entitled to seek and hold onto our place as being the Establishment.

And now we should bring up again the points being made before about traditionalists. For in the lust of religiously conservative Christians' for taking back our place as ruling over or controlling American society to a significant degree, we are struggling to restore the past, to elevate and bring back our traditions. That means that we will not give a willing ear to modernity or Post Modernism for any significant time because we believe that our traditions put us in a place where we believe we have everything to teach Modernism and Post Modernism and little if anything to learn from them. And our reluctance or even refusal to listen to others besides ourselves not only causes hardships for others, we hurt ourselves with such arrogance and we cause harm to the reputation of the Gospel.

And so this struggle that Godfrey wrote about 29 years ago still provides a model not just for the struggles that exist in some denominations today, but also in American society and culture.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 9, 2022

 Feb 24

To W. Robert Godfrey and his adult class presentation on the end of Christendom and the effects of that end. This was posted on the Abounding Grace Radio website.

The more I listen to this series by Godrey, the more I am disappointed by his lack of scholarly approach to the subjects and groups he discusses. How much has Godfrey studied or knows about Darwin, Marx, Freud, CRT, BLM, the Finnish Bishop who is on trial in Finland for hate speech, and so on. In some of these cases, Godfrey states that he is not that familiar with these groups, people, or ideologies and yet he speaks as if he understands the core issues involved. In other cases, he simply demonstrates that lack of familiarity by what he says about them.

But what Godfrey lacks in familiarity, he more than makes up with in presenting the traditional conservative view of and response to these different groups, people, and movements. In that, Godfrey demonstrates a lack of awareness of the key weakness of any traditionalist regardless of the ideology that traditionalist belongs to. For that key weakness is that traditionalists, whether they are conservatives, liberals, or leftists, rely too much on the past to understand and respond to the present.

Are the people, ideologies, or movements really at odds with each other? Are they all reductionistic? Considering that Marx and Freud were not contemporaries and their specialties were in different subjects, it is a bit premature to say that they or their ideas opposed each other. But we do get a sort of marriage between the two in Frankfort School, which Godfrey never mentioned. Or while Godfrey mentions all of the chief sins that have been identified and addressed by different movements and his hope that these different movements would spend their time attacking each other, Intersectionality weds the concerns of the various groups that have been oppressed. Godfrey never mentions that. In fact, while Godfrey seems to state that BLM is only concerned with black lives, such is not the case since it is also embraces intersectionality.

When talking about the Finnish Bishop who is on trial for hate speech because of what was said about homosexuals, is Godfrey aware that the key evidence, the pamphlet about the supposed Christian view of sex, not only says that it speaks for the Bible, it also claims to speak science in stating that homosexuality is a threat to society? Is that the Christian view? It isn't the view of science? And so is it the Christian view of homosexuality that is investigated there or a view of homosexuality by a particular Christian who misspoke for at least science if not for Christianity. Yes, homosexuality is a sin, but so is idolatry. And so do we classify other religions as a threat to society?

And having known people in BLM, I am puzzled as to who in BLM thinks that only black lives matter?

Finally, Godfrey seems unaware of the distinction that CRT makes between personal racist views and racism. Why does it make that distinction? It is because despite the bigotry suffered by ethnic groups of whites such as the Irish and the Italians, both of whom Godfrey mentions, their experiences with racial, or more precisely ethnic, oppression does not compare in magnitude or structure with the oppression that blacks have faced in this nation. CRT acknowledges that everyone is vulnerable to having personal racist attitudes and beliefs. But none of the other groups that Godfrey mentioned has the kind or depth of race-based oppression faced by blacks in this nation. None of the groups Godfrey mentioned faced the combination of systemic racism along with widespread racist views and beliefs expressed by individuals.

It is true that those other groups do not mention sin and the need for salvation in Christ. But then again, that is not the sphere in which they operate. In the meantime, we all need to understand the Post Modern criticism of those who claim to have exclusive knowledge of the truth. We don't have to nor should agree with  Post Modernism's response to those who claim to have exclusive knowledge of the truth. But we need to understand that criticism lest we practice those attitudes and actions that Post Modernism rightly identifies as problems.

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

Feb 25

To R. Scott Clark and Jon Payne for Clark's article that consists of a substantial quote of Jon Payne's article lamenting the defeat of Overtures #23 and #37 in the PCA. Those overtures would have prohibited Christian men who struggle with Same Sex Attraction (SSA) but remain celibate from hold offices in the PCA. Clark's article appeared in Heidelblog.

Jon Payne's article can be found at:

https://gospelreformation.net/reality-check-the-future-of-the-pca/

I am glad that the Overtures #23 and #37 were defeated. They targeted those who have been struggling with homosexual desires with a similar marginalization in the PCA that has, until recently, been employed against the LGBT community  in society for most of America's history. In fact, with the way that those supporting the overtures appeared to be looking down on those struggling with SSA, you would have thought that that those who struggle with SSA were spiritual lepers who would spread their disease to others in the denomination.

The real issue here is one of comfort. Those who supported the overtures expressed tremendous discomfort with having to work as equals with those they perceive to be a spiritual threat and inferior. That discomfort also use to exist in society and was a cause for society's past marginalization of homosexuals. So perhaps the failure of those overtures to pass illustrate that those supporting the overtures had not proved their claim that Side B Christians are a threat or inferior. Thus, the failure of the overtures might be  a sign of maturity by many who opposed them.

Also, Jon Payne's article laments over the fact that the PCA is now becoming progressive. And perhaps that lament itself illustrates part of the problem with those supporting the overtures. Here we should note that Payne doesn't say why being progressive is bad. Rather, he uses the word as a pejorative label. Such a use of pejoratives is both authoritarian and, logically speaking, begs the question. In addition, such a use clearly signals an intolerance of the political positions that many who  voted for the overtures are not willing to tolerate in the denomination. Thus, that warning might illustrate one reason why those supporting the overtures appear to have not proved why their fears of Side B Christians are justified.

What is overlooked by those supporting the overtures is the magnitude of the spiritual and moral battle Side B Christians face and the internal turmoil they live with because they want something that is unnatural. Those who remain celibate are exhibiting a level of resolve that many of the rest of us may not have. And their internal suffering goes unrecognized because we don't know what nature is saying them on the inside. Here we should note that nature is fallen. We know that the design of nature speaks against their desires. But does fallen nature say to them through their minds and bodies?

Hopefully, the PCA will both resist the calls to counter the defeat of the overtures called for by the writer of the article and will hold a firm line on celebacy for those struggling with SSA.

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

Feb 28

To Joseph Musomelli and his article that tells us not to demonize Russia for its actions toward the Ukraine. His article was written in 2017 in reference to the annexation of Crimea and was reposted on the Imaginative Conservative blog

The above article needs updating. It needs to include the current invasion of the Ukraine as well as the inclusion of some forgotten items from the past as well as Russia's own current state of affairs.

There is no justification for the invasion of the Ukraine. Citing similar past actions by the West, especially by the US, can only serve to indict the West for those actions rather than minimize the evil that Russia is practicing. 

Of course pushing NATO eastward is a possible contributing factor to the invasion. But note Putin's logic in appealing to historic ties between Russia and the Ukraine. Such an appeal is used to justify his unilateral decision of absorbing the Ukraine into Russia and doing so at a high human and moral cost. Using NATO's expansion to justify or minimize the Russian invasion would be somewhat comparable to using the effects of the Versailles Treaty to do the same with Hitler's conquest of Western Europe.

Also, we need to consider Putin's past actions to determine what this invasion of the Ukraine reveals. Considering Putin's harsh treatment of Chechnya, the deadly silencing of critics within its own nation, and denying the emergence of viable competing political parties and candidates makes the invasion of the Ukraine seem more consistent with a pattern of deep authoritarianism rather than with that of serving any legitimate self-interest.

Finally, this invasion puts  Putin's western religiously conservative Christian fans in a dilemma. For on the one hand, these fellow Christians of mine see the relationship between Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church as a model for the relationship they want to have between their respective governments and the Church. And yet, they know that this invasion is wrong. But for them to admit how wrong it is is being compromised by how they view the relationship between Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church.

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

March 7

To Joseph Mussomeli and his article analyzing the current situation of Russia's invasion of the Ukraine and Western Europe's response. It is an excellent article that merits reading. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There are so many points to agree with in the above article. The culpability of the West as well as the immoral actions taken by Russia are 2 such points. Also we should note the hypocritical practices of the US as well as the understandable perception of a threat and betrayal felt by Russia are more points that accepted and continually meditated on.

But blaming our actions on childishness is unhelpful not only because such labeling is imprecise, but it is also because it misses a common theme of the actions taken by the 2 adversaries in the ring which could actually be responded to.. The common theme that is driving both Putin and the NATO nations toward the precipice is the truth that the predominant flaw of both traditionalists and many old people is that they rely too much on the past to interpret and respond to the present.

That flaw is not just making more than a cameo appearance in this conflict. It permeates how Russia is governed by Putin and it is even more  evident here at home as we watch our fellow countrymen, who passionately embrace and pride themselves in American Capitalism and Individualism so that they are unable to accept the threats that climate change and the pandemic pose. Such Americans can't accept the realities of those threats because doing so would mean changing too much from how they did thing in the past. And we also saw this reluctance to change when many American whites fought vigorously to resist efforts of the Civil Rights Movement during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. In fact, the current systemic racism that still exists is evidence that that resistance is still alive.

We should also note that Russia has been a thug nation under Putin for a long while. But much of that thuggery is exhibited internally and it is increasingly reminiscent of that which existed under most of the former Soviet leaders And so after knowing how many nuclear apocalyptic bullets we dodged under the Cold War, one would think that we would no longer rely on Cold War thinking and strategies of trying to surround an adversarial  super power as much as possible in an attempt to control it.

And  Putin is relying too much on the past in seeing the degree of threat that exists if the Ukraine actually becomes a member of NATO. Such an occurrence, though very insensitive to Russia's  past in more than one way, does not pose the same threat that nations from the West posed to Russia in past centuries. Thus, the urgency seen in Russia's response to today's Ukraine is based on its over reliance on the past.

Certainly there is the opposite danger of relying too little on the past to interpret and respond to the present. And so a balance must be struck. But it seems that the driving force for both NATO and Putin cantering together  toward the precipice is an over reliance on the past, not a childishness, in how they are interpreting and responding to the present.

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

March 8

To Chris Gordon and his short article that gives an example of a anti-war Ukrainian being made to swallow his theoretical stand against war to the physical reality of the Russian invasion. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio website.

Of course, who will be a conditional fan of war if the world's reaction to the invasion leads to Russia resorting to using nuclear weapons.

Traditionalists of all ideologies and national identities along with old people share the same predominant fault: they rely too much on the past to understand and respond to the present. An ignored message from the past tells us our choice about continuing to rely on war to achieve our purposes (see  https://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/85russein.pdf  ):

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?1 People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty.

If you note the number of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed on to the document (8 out of the 11 who signed the document) from which the above quote comes from, you will see that the Russell-Einstein Manifesto should be continually consulted before going off to war. After all, it is a document for the nuclear age. Also perhaps we should see war for what it does to its participants. For all too often, war makes us choose between military defeat and moral suicide. 

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

 Feb 17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On or After Feb 17

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

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

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

In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be jsut, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feb 21

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

The link to Trueman's article is below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feb 22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blog For February 16, 2020

 Feb 8

To Chuck Chalberg and his article on CRT and what is dividing Americans. The comment is directed at only part of the article. The article appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

It seems to me that the logic employed by Chalberg in the above article is similar to the logic employed by Post Modernism. For whereas Post Modernism employed an outcome-based truth system to support its rejection of the metanarratives of both Pre Modernism, where the metanarrative is faith, and Modernism, where the metanarratives are science and reason, Chalberg rejects CRT because of what he believes the theory implies: America is a force for ill in the world. Such is assumed false by Chalberg. In addition, Chalberg's division of Americans, where they are divided between those who believe that America has been a force for good vs those who believe that America has been a force for ill illustrates a black-white worldview in that the position not considered is that America has been a force for both good and ill in the world.

It is understandable that American traditionalists, and religiously conservative Christian Americans have a strong tendency to be American traditionalists, would outrightly object to and oppose CRT. That is because such traditionalists have their significance closely bound to believing the best about their country. But how many of those conservative opponents to CRT understand racism from having experienced it as its victims.

It isn't that CRT is without errors. But it is that CRT attempts to describe racial oppression in America from the perspective of how many Blacks have  experienced that oppression. And yet, Chalberg's main concern here is that it describes America as a force for ill rather than for good.

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

Feb 11

To W. Robert Godfrey and his recorded adult class lesson why Christendom has been replaced. This lesson eventually focuses on the influence Darwin's thinking had as it helped undo Christendom. This recording was posted on the Abounding Grace Radio webste.

This series by Godfrey is meant to calm the uneasiness that many of my fellow religiously conservative American Christians have over  the changes in our society. Our nation and society no longer have a Christian outlook, a.k.a.,  embracing Christendom, on the world. But what we religiously conservative Christians have been oblivious too or have too easily excused is the suffering that Christendom caused. That suffering rivals the suffering caused by Christendom's replacements. Here, we would do well to listen to a Post Modern critique. For Post Modernism had rejected those who make exclusive truth claims because of history, because of the feeling of entitlement that has enabled some to more easily commit atrocities.

While Godfrey reduces what Darwin taught to chance and survival of the fittest and neglects Darwin's concern for justice in this lesson, he claims that Christianity teaches us to love and care for the needy and to act justly. But is that what history tells us what Christians do? In addition, some unbelieving friends of mine criticize Christians for needing the threat of a punishing God to motivate them to love and help others.

Godfrey has an out for Christendom's failures. But he doesn't extend that same out to the unbelieving thinkers and non-Christian ideologies for their failures. Again, Post Modernism seems to have observed that Christendom does not differ from other influences and ideologies in terms of the abuses and atrocities they have caused. Perhaps we should not relish the 'good old days' of Christendom nor should we consider it a mystery why it has been replaced.

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

Feb 12

To Chris Gordon and his article on the danger of drifting away from Jesus because of one's concern with worldly problems. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio website.

The above article needs balance for the sake of both Christians and unbelievers. When Dietrich Bonhoeffer visited a predominantly black church with a friend from seminary, he was deeply impressed with how the minister could talk about both the Gospel and worldly problems.  

Both worldly problems and the Gospel need to be preached on and thought about. Why? Well, in the church Bonhoeffer visited, our nation was in the middle of Jim Crow when whites could lynch blacks with impunity. And though the church that Bonhoeffer visited was not located in the Jim Crow region of the US, there was long-standing and harsh racial oppression of blacks everywhere, including the North. Racial oppression had to be preached on in that church because it was a very pressing problem for all of the members of the congregation. 

In white churches, thinking that the need to preach on or think about racial oppression was perceived to be not as great because most, if not all, of the people in those churches were not facing racial oppression.  But racial oppression needed to be preached about there just as much as in the black churches for a different reason. That reason being to warn the members of those churches not to contribute to or participate in the oppression of others.

We need the preaching of the Gospel and the preaching and thinking about worldly problems. That is because the Gospel is not there to provide an escape from worldly problems, but the strength to be faithful while living in the midst of those problems. For the oppressed, the Gospel is there to help them bear through the oppression. For the privileged, the Gospel is there to help them repent from contributing to or participating in the oppression of others as well as to extend help and mercy to the oppressed.

That last point is very significant to our sharing of the Gospel with unbelievers. for failure to understand how the Gospel  should help Christians as either the oppressed or the privileged has led some to discredit the Gospel and even persecute Christians for using the Gospel to escape the problems of the world. Consider the following quote from Vladimir Lenin:

Present-day society is wholly based on the exploitation of the vast masses of the working class by a tiny minority of the population, the class of the landowners and that of the capitalists. It is a slave society, since the “free” workers, who all their life work for the capitalists, are “entitled” only to such means of subsistence as are essential for the maintenance of slaves who produce profit, for the safeguarding and perpetuation of capitalist slavery...

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.

Our our concern is not about choosing between preaching and thinking about the Gospel or preaching and thinking about worldly problems. Our concern here should be how to preach the Gospel so that, amongst other things, we can persevere through the problems of the world and hopefully bring others alongside with us.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 12, 2022

 Dec 22

To R. Scott Clark and the Reverend Dr Peter Sanlon for the part of Sanlon's article quoted in Clark's article that warns the PCA not to accept any appeal or argument made by Side-B Christians regarding their standing in that denomination. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Sanlon's article can be found at either

https://theaquilareport.com/a-letter-to-pca-friends-from-england-speaking-to-your-future/

or

https://www.reformation21.org/blog/a-letter-to-pca-friends-from-england

There are several problems with the above article. The first problem is that there seems to be an expressed fear of being able to distinguish the different flavors of Side-B Christians.  There is an expressed fear that if the more acceptable Side-B Christians are welcomed as spiritual peers, then the worst Side-B Christians are sure to follow. Such thinking is a form of all-or-nothing thinking which, in part, is part and parcel of authoritarianism and thus not necessarily Biblical.

There is a problem with the claim that some Side-B Christians are 'downplaying' the work of the Holy Spirit in being able to change their desires. With that is the implication that those correcting Side-B Christians have experienced a fuller work of the Spirit, that they have no equivalent issues to the Side-B Christian struggle with SSA. So perhaps Machen's racism with its implicit white supremacy expressed in some of his letters to his mother is not as serious as struggling with SSA. Of course, it is unknown if Machen recognized let alone struggled with his own racism. And before him, we have Whitfield and Edwards and their accepting of white supremacy as expressed in their owning or viewing slavery. Here we should be reminded of how they benefited from those beliefs. And what should we say about today's exemplary Christians from the Reformed Theology Tradition who are accepting of systemic racism or the economic exploitation that is a foundational part of our current economic system because they, like Machen, are members of privileged groups? What should we say about those same Christians who are apathetic to the suffering caused by our nation's misuse of its military and other services or by our foreign policies because they live in a privileged country? I could go on.

Finally, isn't it one thing to question experienced or emotional based beliefs when they run counter to the Scriptures and another thing to question those same kind of beliefs when they run counter to or go beyond the scope of issues covered by the Reformed Confessions? If we can't make that distinction, then are we implying that like the Scriptures, the Confessions are inerrant and sufficient to guide Christians living in today's world? Do we really think that none of today's issues are new to what the writers of our confessions thought of or had to deal with? Are we implying that because of our Reformed Confessions and Catechisms that we do not need to list to others as they share about their experiences and feelings? 

Certainly there are faults, some very serious, that come with the different varieties of Side-B Christianity. But their problems in no way imply that those who automatically reject them as  being spiritual peers are either correct in their rejection of them or have no faults as serious as any Side-B Christians have.

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

Dec 28

To W. Robert Godfrey and his church school lesson on the changes in our world due to the overthrow of Christendom. Thie appeared on the Abounding Grace Radio Blog.

Besides oversimplifying Hegel, Marx, and the struggle to improve, Godfrey employs a double standard. For at the end he says that Christians are easy to attack because they are sinners and not perfect. And so if one only focuses on their sins and ignores what they do is good, it is easy to attack Christianity. And yet he seems not to consistently employ the same graciousness when dealing with the faults of those who sought to overthrow Christendom.

In addition, we might want to ask if there is something wrong with unbelievers only seeking to improve life on earth for others. And if Christians do not to join them in that venture, doesn't that makes them guilty of what Lenin observed and thus charged the Christians of his day with? 

So does what Godfrey said about Christians and their faults apply to whatever group, movement, or ideology that we wish to criticize? For it seems that Godfrey is complaining that Christianity is being rejected simply because of the sins of Christians while ignoring Christianity's contribution and yet he seems not to mind rejecting other ideologies as a result of employing the same logic. Here we should note that Martin Luther King Jr., if memory serves, borrowed from Hegel in some of his analysis. 

Also, if we want to focus so on the secular prophecy that predicted Hitler's emergence, why not also examine WW I to note how each side claimed that the Christian God was on their side. And what about the colonialism, imperialism, slavery, ethnic cleansing, anti-semitism, and such which were all the fruit of Christendom?

The problem with traditionalists is that they rely too heavily on the past to analyze and respond to the present. The problem with narcissists is that they don't rely enough on the past to understand and respond to the present. And if we placed a  line between those two positions, we find that most of us lean, at various points on that line, one way or the other. Unfortunately, our world changes and that requires us to change. And the failure to change wisely dooms one to suffer the harsh consequences that comes from either overreacting or under reacting to our ever changing world.

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

Jan 3

To Gene Veith and his article on how Trump is not receiving the credit he deserves for the development of the vaccines and how he is being vilified for his Covid policies. In the end, Veith asks about how one reacts to Trump and whether Trump should run for President. Veith's opinion is that Trump's influence and political career will disappear. This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos.

There is no doubt that Trump deserves credit for making the situation more feasible for developing the vaccines--though we need to remember that Trump did not develop the vaccines himself, Al Gore did.

But where Trump deserves unwanted negative credit was in his flaunting of the disease and, thus, his flaunting of medical science in how seriously he took the disease after the end of April of 2020. His flaunting of the disease included his promotion of hydroxychloroquine and deliberate disregard for the wearing of masks and his pushing people to prematurely return to life as normal. His flaunting of medical science was parallel to his ridicule of the courts and the election system after the election. His behavior, in both cases, encouraged people to prefer offbeat sources like QAnon to medical science and the courts even where his own appointed judges presided.

Yes, Trump does deserve credit for fostering an environment that helped speed the development of the vaccines. But he also deserves credit for flaunting medical science and thus encouraging others to do the same with regard how they were to react to the Covid-19 pandemic. And Veith doesn't help here when he presents the story of Trump and Covid in such a bipolar manner. It is as if Veith was trying to make the case that if Trump is not the epitome of evil, then he must be innocent of the Covid-related accusations against him.

As for whether one should support Trump for President again, let us remember how he has tried to make people so dependent on his alternative facts and himself as the sole source for reliable information and news. And let's remember Jan 6, 2020, a day that could have lived in infamy if some of his supporters had their way in that insurrection.

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

Jan 4

To Paul Krause and his article that tries to establish Western Exceptionalism by trying to tie it to the exceptionalism found in the Hebrew Bible. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I guess by praising the Hebrew Bible, one is praising oneself or one's own group when one tries to establish strong ties between the Hebrew Bible and oneself or one's own group. But we should note two problems with that approach. First, the New Testament is the completion of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament makes it clear that without that completing of the Hebrew Bible, one is left to be condemned by its principles so praised in the above article because of one's own violations of those principles.

Second, history is quite clear in pointing out the vast disconnect that exists between the principles of the Hebrew Bible and what has driven Western Civilization. However, there is a point of continuity between the Hebrew Bible and Western Civilization: religious intolerance. Religious diversity was labeled as idolatry punishable by God's judgment and sometimes physical death as sanctioned in the Hebrew Bible. A major theme in Western history is the practice of religious intolerance unless an ulterior motive could be satisfied by tolerating other religions.

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

Jan 6

To Patrick M. Garry and his article that attacks the Left for its promotion of an anti-Constitutional democracy. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There are a few things to comment on in the above article. First, there is a conflation of Democratic liberals with the Left. The Left is anti-Capitalist to varying degrees, Democratic liberals are not.

Next, we cannot adequately describe the intentions of The Constitution without noting its context and citing from Yates's notes on the Constitutional debates. What spurred the writing of The Constitution was neither the Revolutionary War nor the newfound independence from Great Britain;  what spurred the writing of that document was Shays Rebellion and the widespread dissent caused by the economic distress of the time. As a result, America's own elites felt threatened and wanted a stronger federal government that would be able to put down resistance. We should note that Madison was not just opposed to direct democracy, but also to allowing all classes of people having the right to vote so that the wealthy could be protected from the demands of the rest. Here we should remember the occupational demographics of those who participated in the Constitutional debates as well as the writer of The Constitution itself. Many were slaveholders or bondholders. 

The Federal Papers make it clear that the charge of factionalism was nothing more than political speech aimed at those with whom America's financial elites disagreed on economic solutions for that time. We should also note that The Contitution initially did not allow for voters, and only around 5% of the population could vote at the time of the writing of that document, to vote for their Senate representatives. Senators were appointed by their state governments, along with the length of a Senator's term, in order to protect Senators from popular opinion.

If democracy is the rule of the people, then America has never been a democracy in the first place. America's varying levels of embracing white supremacy has made sure of that. At best, we are an ethnocracy. But even outside that ethnocracy, whatever democratic elements that exist in our government are strongly limited by the rule of  financial elites (see  https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B  ). 

The lack of democracy and the rule of specific groups  such as whites or financial elites it is what is being defended here. Such a rule produces an authoritarianism that has profoundly infected all political ideological sides from libertarianism to conservatism to  liberalism to the left. In other words, what we are experiencing is a continual King-Of-The-Hill battle for control over the nation. And though more democratic in form that the then different styles of governments were at its time, The Constitution started us down this road a stealth authoritarian rule by privileged groups of this nation. And defense of such an authoritarianism by a religiously conservative Christian source should note surprise anyone since conservative Christianity has a strong penchant for authoritarianism.

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

Jan 9

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that advises the Alliance of Reformed Churches (ARC) on how to proceed after spliting from the Reformed Church of America (RCA). This appeared in the Heidelblog.

The mocking of the Mainline denominations simply because they have attempted to address issues that we daily face because we live in today's world is not consistent with how we are to live as Christians. And that is one of the problems with the above article. Correcting others as if one is above them is a temptation that we face as Christians and thus how we confront others should be tempered by our own failures and sins. And we should be able to do that because we who hold to the Reformed traditions pride ourselves in believing that we are saved by grace alone.

It is also nice to know that those in the Reformed sideline churches tolerate us believers who don't hold to conservative social and political views. We should thank those social and political conservatives for being so gracious for allowing us to be members of their churches.

If I were to advise the ARC about its future, I would say that instead of looking at being either faithful to the Confessions or being culturally relevant as a choice, it should look at both as being siren songs with each containing its own hazards and dangers. 

There is a certain degree to which we need to be faithful the the Confessions, but lest those Confessions begin to compete with the Scriptures for our attention and dependency, we need to lower the pedestal on which they are often placed. We need to see that the writers of those Confessions as well as other writings from the past were significantly influenced by their own cultures and life experiences. And thus, to depend too much on those Confessions and writings not only can cause us to depend too much on them, it can make us less able to translate what is in the Scriptures to today's life. Here we should remember that a key fault of traditionalists is to depend too heavily on the past to understand and respond to the present.

On the other hand, we need to distinguish between being culturally relevant from being culturally influential. That is because being influential sometimes depends on affirming current actions, attitudes, and beliefs that go against the Scriptures. Being culturally relevant simply means being able to make understandable what the Scriptures have said in order to clearly address today's issues. Our ability to translate the Scriptures that way can be limited when we depend too much on Confessions and the writing s of others from the past who were heavily influenced by their own cultures and who did not face the world we face today.

The Scriptures must be our guide above all guides. As for the Confessions, we must realize that, like ourselves, not only have the writers of those Confessions and other writings  face issues unique for their time and location, but that how we look at the Scriptures has already been influenced by our own culture and life experiences. And thus to better understand the Scriptures, we must be honest in how we look at both ourselves and the writers of our Confessions and other writings has affected how we interpret the Scriptures. 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 22, 2021

Dec 14

To Stephen M. Klugewicz and his article about the nobility of conservative thinkers and how they sometimes fight for lost causes but often pessimistic because of the world around them. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog. 

According to the above article, conservative thinkers do not believe in utopias and theybelieve that the pursuit of them is dangerous. And yet, they seem to believe that they have a monopoly on what is true, good, and virtuous, which is a shared trait with those who attempt to build utopias.

According to the above article, conservative thinkers have everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them--a phraseology borrowed from Martin Luther King Jr. when he was talking about the West.

According to the above article, the conservative thinker thinks the same of himself in comparison with nonconservatives as the Pharisee thought of himself compared with the publican (see Luke 18:9-14).

Yes, conservatism has ideas to contribute to the well-being of mankind. But so do liberalism and leftist ideologies. We should note that none of those ideologies, along with any other ideologies not mentioned, are omniscient. And because of that, we all need to listen to those who hold to ideas and beliefs other than our own.

Finally, we should note that the person, conservative or nonconservative, who believes his own press is a sibling to the person who would act as his own lawyer.

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

Dec 15

To R. Scott Clark and Steve Dowling for Clark's quoting from Dowling's article that dissents from a PCA denominational hearing that decided to support the ordination of a Christian who is same sex attracted but does not act on that attraction and believes that he will always have that attraction. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Steve Dowling's article can be found at:

https://theaquilareport.com/dissenting-opinion-on-the-sjc-decision-in-the-missouri-presbytery-greg-johnson-case/

Why do my fellow religiously conservative Christians often resort to using pedophilia in comparisons with homosexuality? Why? Can't they see the differences between the two attractions or are they unintentionally using hyperbole to demean homosexuality?

We should note something from the NT, it is grossly significant sins that makes one's Christian faith questionable. Not all of those grossly significant sins include actions, but many do. We should note something else about homosexuality in the NT, though it is a grossly significant sin, there are sins, even sexual sins, that are worse. For example, a man having sexual relations with his father's wife, see I Cor 5, is a sin not even tolerated by pagans--which is unbelievers, not the motorcycle gang,  Meanwhile, an honest reading of Romans 1:18ff tells us that, though against nature, homosexuality among unbelievers should not surprise us. 

So what about those who are SSA compared with those who struggle with lusting after people of the opposite sex? What do we, people who are attracted to the opposite sex, really know about being SSA that we can render a fair judgment on those who are SSA? And are we going to be consistent with how we judge and respond to those who share our own sexual sins? If a Christian no longer acts on SSA, then doesn't their life demonstrate and aren't they acknowledging  an ongoing sanctification? If a Christian is no longer looking at porn, does their life not demonstrate and are they not acknowledging an ongoing sanctification? Even when a Christian acknowledges that a desire they have is sinful, that Christian can very well be demonstrating and acknowledging an ongoing sanctification.

Fear in Dowling's dissenting article I sense. And as we all know from intergalactic history, fear is the the path to the dark side. Fear is the path to becoming the Pharisee from the parable of the 2 men praying. Ok, maybe not the path, but it is a path all too often taken. I sense fear because Dowling's dissent is authoritarian in nature and authoritarianism is a fear driven response. It is the kind of fear that makes one reluctant to make distinctions, such as what we see in those with phobias. Here we should note that authoritarianism often employs black-white thinking and such thinking is strongly incapable of making distinctions. And from what I have read and understand about the situation, that seems to be the case here.

I have no problem with saying that a Christian who is applying/nominated for a church office who is also SSA needs closer scrutiny. They also may need more church resources in maintaining their resistance to their attraction. But having met Christians who are SSA and who are not acting on that attraction, we are making a horrible mistake when we automatically disqualify them from holding church offices because of the struggles they have. But worse than that, we are becoming more vulnerable to becoming the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying when we adamantly oppose their being accepted and recognized as church officers.

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

Dec 16

To W. Robert Godfrey and his adult Church School lessons on the passing of Christendom. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio blog.

Perhaps a reason that we are confused about the end of Christendom is because of how we see  our history. On the one hand, Godfrey says that there are exceptions to his generalities. On the other hand, Americans did not have to address anyone by calling them 'Lord.'

So I guess that how slaves had to address their masters is simply an exception to one of his generalities and thus what life was like for slaves was seen merely as an exception and thus was not covered by Godfrey's depiction of life in America. The same could be said for some free Blacks, Native Americans, and women. Not that any had to call anyone 'Lord,' but the independence and freedom Godfrey described in America back in its past was not often experienced by those group of people. Thus Godfrey is presenting a white male, Christian centric view of American history. And he is doing that because his description of life in America back then as monolithic.

However, I could agree with Godfrey's assessment that Americans don't appreciate history like they should. And it isn't just the kids who don't fully appreciate American history. After all, just look at how many adults condemn in total the 1619 Project and CRT and work to prohibit them from being taught in our schools today.

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

Dec 17

To R. Scott Clark and his article against using a 17th century doxology in singing praise to God. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Having taught I believe that the mere repetition of text does not always show that one has learned its meaning. It's not until people put that text in their own words that the extent that real learning has taken place. So why not sing both from the Psalms, or the other Scriptures, and the 17th century Doxology as well as hymns written by Christians? Why employ an exclusive-or logic here?

I find the exclusive singing of Psalms to be motivated out of fear rather than faith. The exclusive singing of the Psalms or any parts of the Scriptures acts as a fence that guards us from singing wrong words and concepts. But it also acts as camouflage that can hide our hymns and songs show an adequate understanding of the Scriptures. Besides, unless we sing in the original languages of the Scriptures, we are going to sing wrong words anyway. Yes it limits it, but it is still the case.

Exclusive singing of the Psalms or the Scriptures is an attempt to avoid making mistakes some of which could lead slippery slopes. But it is also an attempt at perfectionism. And, as mentioned before, it can easily hide our misunderstanding of the text. I find it ironic that some people who liken wokeness to seeking justification by works can be so strict and legalistic about not using musical instruments or hymns in worship. 

 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 15, 2021

 Dec 7

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quotation of an article that celebrates the successful court challenge to the Biden Administration's vaccine mandates. This appears in the Heidelblog.

Clark needs to really vet his sources, or perhaps he has in a tragic way. The inflammatory reference, in the article he quotes from, to a 'federal mandate regime' is most unfortunate seeing that the mandates are based on the findings and advise of medical experts in the midst of a pandemic that has killed over 750k Americans  in less than 2 years

The celebration to the successful court challenges to mandates based on advice from medical experts shows how narrow the vision is becoming for more and more Christians. Thus, complaints about American society made by Christian scholars like Carl Trueman in his book about the modern self appear to involve more projection than analysis.

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

Dec 11

To W. Robert Godfrey and his Church School lesson on the effects of the end of Christendom on history and the present. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio blog (see  https://agradio.org/ )

Godfrey presents a Christian-centric, not to be confused with a Christo-centric, view of the changing times. Consider some of what he said in this presentation:

Why are people angry? 

     It's because Christendom has ended.

    The Enlightenment's ideas of freedom and democracy were borrowed from the best of Christianity.

    The Enlightenment wanted to free people from superstitions and ignorance that was seen in Christianity. And those things existed because Christians are sinners.

    An Enlightenment complaint was that Christianity taught people to go along with suffering and oppression. And yet the best of Christianity has always worked for positive change.

The above statements put a real damper on how Christianity is suppose to own its mistakes and sins. Godfrey would have done better to say that there are two presentations  of Christianity: the Christianity of the Scriptures and the Christianity portrayed by Christians.

At the same time, while admitting that the Church sided with corruption and wealth, he only mentioned the Roman Church as doing so. During that same time period here in America, many Protestants believed in and promoted white supremacy as exhibited in the ethic cleansing of Native Americans from the land and embracing a race-based chattel slavery. I presumed he was including the 17th and 18th centuries here since he noted the failures of the Enlightenment demonstrated in the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror.

And what do we have today which relates to the Enlightenment according to Godfrey? We have Wokeness where either people are aware or not aware--that is comparable, according to Godfrey, to the Enlightenment where people were either enlightened or in the dark. And we should note that with battle over Wokeness, we are talking about how serious and pervasive are our past and current sins.

Yes, Godfrey does give some compliments to the Enlightenment. Godfrey also lays some criticism s at the feet of Christianity. But he does the latter in a guarded way so as to not to admit too much about our faults and sins while having reason to be proud because the best parts of the Enlightenment came from us and what our ancestors said and did.

Perhaps we Christians should note that people are angry, in part, because of the past existence of Christendom, not its end. We should note that we didn't supply the Enlightenment with its best parts. That there are times when what the best of Christians did in the past to implement positive change was insignificant because there were so few of those best Christians that they became outliers to their time and place.

To share the Gospel, we need to preach Christ and Him crucified rather than to argue over what blame and credit Christians deserve to receive for what they did in the past. Fortunately for all of us, our faith rests in Christ, not in each other.

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

Dec 14

To Jerry Saylor and his article whose title protests against a totalitarian democracy but spends offers a more detailed critique against the "Heresy of Equality.' This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

When one condemns anti-racists for being pro-equality, then we should see a flurry of red flags raising. The same when we see the condemnation of those protesting for full equality for the LGBT community. Who else doesn't deserve equality according to those who condemn?

Certainly equality trumps the intentions of those who participating in the writing of The Constitution. But if law is based on equality, then how can equality trump the rule of law? 

That the above article appeared on a religiously conservative website should surprise no one. Religious conservatives have a strong penchant for hierarchy in society and authoritarian rule. History demonstrates that. That is the case because there is a great deal of stress on authoirty figures and structures within most conservative religions. But here, it seems that we see an example of a conservative who wants the outside world to suffer from or enjoy, take your pick, what is experienced by those inside a conservative religion.

For all of Saylor's complaints, with some false accusations, what equality does is to trump tribalism with its moral relativity and its inherent group authoritarianism. And in doing so, promoting equality can provide a firm basis for  more just and fair laws. I don't know anyone who promotes equality who expects an egalitarian utopia. But we do expect improvement. And considering our nation's history, it is far better to work for improvement by correcting past and present mistakes and even atrocities than to be a right-wing dissident who promotes an old and very flawed former status quo.