Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 14, 2022

Nov 20

To the Heidelblog for its article on Greg Johnson's church, Memorial Presbyterian Church leaving of the PCA. That church decided to leave because of Johnson's treatment by those in the PCA. The treatment he received was because of his advocacy for Side B Christianity and for some of the programs it was running for those who are transgendered.

The over reliance on the Westminster Standards points to the faults of some conservatives in how they react to LGBT issues. The degree of reliance on those standards makes those standards to conservative Presbyterians what the traditions were to the Pharisees mentioned in Mark 7.

The over reliance on those standards in this issue can be seen in the fact that the writers of those standards have not faced many of the issues we are facing today. In fact, most of us who are living today do not understand enough about homosexuality and transgenderism to take some of the stands that those who rely too heavily on those standards are taking. 

Most of us have not read much about these issues from the medical and psychological communities to adequately respond to Side_B Christianity and Revoice. We do know enough from the Scriptures to say that homosexuality and transitioning genders are not actions that can be tolerated in the Church regardless of the denomination that a given church like Memorial Presbyterian Church belongs to. But we don't know enough about the struggles that people today who are SSA and those with gender dysphoria have on how to adequately respond to those who SSA or have gender dysphoria. Their struggles are not all necessarily the same as those who had those conditions when the Westminster Standards were written.

So it seems that both sides need correction. We have to realize that SSA and gender dysphoria point to problems we have not just with our sin nature, but with nature itself since it also fell when Adam and Eve sinned. But how we approach people whose struggles are different from our own must not be based on even a small level of xenophobia. We all have multiple identities. One of our identities is in Christ. Another one of our identities is the same as that of the tax collector in the parable of the two men praying. Without that latter identity, that parable ironically becomes irrelevant for us believers. It ironically becomes irrelevant because forgetting that latter identity is unscriptural.

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

Nov 21

To Heidelblog and Steven Smith for the part that quotes Smith's review of Muñoz's book that claims that natural rights and equality. That such concept minimizes religious freedom in America. 

Steven Smith's full article can be found at:

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2022/11/85411/

If we understand the following logic, then we should realize that freedom has the same built in self-restraint that democracy has.

Freedom - Equality = Privilege.

Of course we should recognize that democracy without equality for its citizens is not democracy. Here we should remember what Thomas Jefferson said in his 1801 Inaugural Address:

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

When exercising our freedom, our religious actions and speech becomes privilege when our actions and speech does not recognize the equality of others. Of course some would argue about the necessity of natural law into the formula. But whose natural law are we referring to?

That question comes into play with LGBT issues because of what the Christian understanding of natural law says. But when we look at nature and the fact that same-sex behavior (SSB) can be observed in hundreds if not well over 1,000 species, what should we say? After all, since we don't recognize sin in animals, sin is not the issue in their SSB. And so don't we need to acknowledge that nature might be giving some people mixed messages about sexual orientation and gender identity? And if our religious freedom is infringing on the equality of others, then aren't we exercising religious privilege instead?

The issue of when the exercise of religion was really the exercise of privilege also came into play in America from the 1870s through to the 1960s. That was when Jim Crow had a prominent place in American life even in those places where Jim Crow laws were not passed. For some Christians used their religious faith to defend white supremacy and segregation. Therefore, the federal dismantling of Jim Crow could logically be seen as an infringement on religious freedom of those Christians who used their faith to defend Jim Crow. The same could be said about the federal effort to dismantle slavery.

If we include the concept of democracy here, we find that the government is there to represent all of its people as equals. And thus to give a religious view privilege and a place of supremacy in determining our laws over people from other religious views changes our democracy into a religious ethnocracy and the religious freedom of those whose religion so honored by the government into religious privilege. And perhaps what we see as an infringement on religious freedom is really an effort to  reduce and eliminate religious privilege.

Is it natural rights that harms the free exercise of religion? It seems that with the issue equality being central in the concepts of freedom and democracy, it appears so. Thus, we need to acknowledge that if our social contract privileged one religion over others, then our social contract no longer promotes freedom and democracy.

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

Dec 5

To R. Scott Clark and his article on what Christians can do with Natural Law in governing our nation. This appeared Heidelblog.

Besides the overly positive view of the American Exceptionalism as see in Clark's description of the American experiment, the problem with the above article is found in the details. Where do we see all of the stipulations made by natural law? Also, if we are free to build a society on natural law are we also free to build a society with only selective parts of natural law?

That last question pertains to LGBT rights today. If we are in a compact not to impose our religious beliefs on others, are we calling our beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity natural law in order to impose those beliefs with a free conscience?

We should also note something else about nature when it comes to many in the LGBT community, We should note that same-sex behavior (SSB) exists in around 1,500 animal species to varying degrees of strength and importance. Noting that we don't attribute sin to animals, is the prevalence of SSB in the animal world telling us something about what natural law says about homosexuality? In fact, are we too willing to make laws about sexual orientation and gender identity when we haven't even come close to understanding all of the factors that contribute to homosexuality and transgenderism?

We might also ask if the Apostles give us any indication of whether they viewed natural law in the same way that Clark, using Reformed Confessions, does? So far, the argument for using natural law to codify laws governing sexual behavior is based on a long list of deductions whose basis for thought comes from Christian theologians and pastors who wrote during a time in Christendom. And if we look at the end of I Corinthians 5 where Paul deals with a sexual sin that he says was not even tolerated among the pagans, what does that say about employing natural laws regarding homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and transgenderism.

Returning to the description of American Exceptionalism as seen in the American experiment, shouldn't one expects more fruit and fewer thorns than what that experiment has produced. Of course, one's view of the fruit and thorns can be greatly determined by the groups one hangs out with. Those groups that have experienced great privilege in this nation will see more fruit and fewer thorns than those groups that have been working their way out of being marginalized. And ironically, the greatest accumulative push for deliverance and freedom from that marginalization came from a time period that questioned, and still does, the place that America's traditional religious faiths, some with their beliefs in natural law, have had in this nation.

We should also note the historical context of the writing of The Constitution. That context was the threat that widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion posed to the status of America's homegrown elites. 

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

Dec 9

To R. Scott Clark and his article that reviews a book by David Neff which responds to a complaint by Roger Olson which says that Arminians are the victims of 'mean Calvinists.' This appeared in Heidelblog.

Roger Olson and I have discussed Calvinism on his blog--btw, he has one of the finest Christian blogs I've seen. When he complains about Calvinists, he  is more often complaining about personal experiences he has had with some Calvinists. But he is careful not to include all Calvinists in that category of those who have shown animosity toward him. So how can Clark criticize Olson's complaints about Calvinists?

Of course Olson also has theological complaints about Calvinism and hopefully my memory will not do disservice to what has said. The short of it is this, Calvinism, according to Olson, does not do justice to man's responsibility and ability to choose or to God's righteousness in dealing with people. In a model that emphasizes man's responsibility and free will in contrast to God's sovereignty, Olson absolutizes the former and thus sees Calvinism's view of God's sovereignty as being inconsistent with that. I remember from my time at WTS that we shouldn't absolutize either God's wanting all to repent or God's sovereignty otherwise we will make one concept subservient to the other. Instead, we should take each concept and apply it to the issues that God's Word applies them to since both concepts are expressed in the Scriptures. At the same time, we were taught Calvinism.

As for the narcissism quip, it is simply wrong and perhaps Clark is providing a minor example of Calvinists about which Olson has been complaining with that quip. Does celebrating or highlighting the small differences that exist between one's own group and other groups in the Church imply that some narcissism is present? We really need to be careful about what we say about each other in the Church lest we become more and more like the Pharisees against whom Jesus spoke. James 2 also warns us against us Christians judging one another. 

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

Dec 9

To Walter McDougall and his article on preserving conservatism despite the existence of hustlers in our system. This article appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There are two points to make here. First, could American Capitalism ever exist without the hustlers in our nation about whom McDougall complained?

Second, if conservatism brings more happiness than liberalism and people are now being directed to pursue the happiness above all, then shouldn't conservatism see a big increase in their numbers right about now?

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

Dec 10

To R. Scott Clark and his article on education and how it is, in essence, providing a road to Sodom for Americans. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

I see the problems with American education differently and I see no Marxist indoctrination. Instead, at the public school level I saw the results of Administrators seeking to put the self image of students as a first priority in education because that is what education theory has been emphasizing, of teachers who have not uses their unions to resist what is being pushed on them, of parents who were second in line in making the self-image of their children in school the top priority, and of students, who are addicted to entertainment, went along for the ride. All of that is what I observed from teaching 19 and 1/2 years in colleges.

If there is any indoctrination to engineer compliance, it is one that promotes corporate interests. This is especially true in colleges and universities with the devaluation of the humanities and  an increased emphasis on technology, business, and what students immediately need to learn to get jobs asap after graduation. In fact, it seems that there is a businessfication of colleges where students have become customers which has lowered the academic standards colleges and universities have used to grant admission and the grade inflation used to retain students once they have started.

What I see among many of my fellow religiously conservative American Christians, including its educators, is a deliberate ignorance of what Marxism is and the full context of the sexual revolutions both about which they so eager wring their hands over and scapegoat.

Many of the problems that we see in American education is the result of the long-term effects of living in a consumer society where progress is measured by how far away from nature our lives can get.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 11, 2017

Sept 29

To C. Daniel Motley and his blogpost that expresses concern about a new sexual revolution that demands polyamory. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

I don't see any significant signs of a new sexual revolution emphasizing polyamory. If it does occur, it isn't because of the Obergefell decision. When one compares monogamous same-sex marriage to monogamous heterosexual marriage and polyamory, it is easy to see that monogamous same-sex marriage has far more in common with monogamous heterosexual marriage than with polyamory.

Perhaps we should look at the attitudes millennials have to sex and marriage to gain some insight into any future call for polyamory. From what I have seen, millennials have a more open view toward multiple sexual partners. But the why is the most important part here. The open view to multiple partners is done out of a search to be/feel more connected. And perhaps it is understanding that search that provides the best hedge against polyamory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 5

To Bob Lepine and his blogpost that tries to make sense of the mass shooting in Las Vegas. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.

One thing we might want to remember here. That when we see violent behavior in society, that that the people who produce such behavior are as much a product of society than anyone else. To believe otherwise in a society where people are increasingly objectified as machines that either help us get what we want or become disposable. is to entertain delusions of righteous grandeur.

What I am saying goes beyond guns, which need to be revamped so as to reduce the probability of similar attacks in the future. Because of the values promoted the most in society, perhaps we should expect more of such calloused actions as what we saw in Las Vegas.

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

October 8

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost of an interview in which he sees people’s interest in the social gospel and concern over social justice as leading people astray from the Gospel. This applied in Heidelblog

There are 3 major problems with the approach taken by R. Scott Clark to the social gospel  and social justice. They consist of an imitation problem, a strawman problem, and the exception of racism.

Clark's imitation problem  has everything to do with how he applies the New Testament to the the social gospel and social justice. For Clark seems to teach that the only things we can learn about the social gospel and social justice from the New Testament is that which can be imitated from the Apostles. If they didn't address social justice or challenge the government when it did wrong, then neither can we. And the basis for Clark's teaching here assumes that there are no significant contextual differences between the Church today and the Church during the time of the Apostles. That Christians are not facing any change of status regarding the Gospel in the world and that the social and political structures are not significantly different during the time of the Apostles.
Such seems to overlook that during the time of the Apostles,  the Gospel was unknown to the rest of the world and so the major concern of the Apostles was to spread the Gospel. And part of spreading the Gospel was to ensure that its reputation, through the actions of believers, remained as spotless as possible. The same cannot be said today. The Gospel is known throughout the world. But not only that, because of the actions of government leaders who have and still claim to rule in the name of Christ, both good and bad associations have been made with the Gospel. And those bad associations must be addressed by the Church if it is to preach the Gospel with as much legitimate credibility as possible.

Thus, we should note that for Clark all that can be gleaned from the times of the Apostles is that even when rulers are wicked, we are to submit to the governming authorities and we are to focus on our personal sanctification. And according to the examples set by the Apostles, there is no room for activism or challenging those in authority. Rather, we are to change society but focusing solely on the changing the lives of individuals with the preaching of the Gospel.

To Clark's approach, the problem of Christian involvement in politics presents a significant challenge. For there were no Christians who served in the local or regional governments of the Roman Empire during the times of the Apostles and neither was there such a thing called Democracy where citizens are called to participate in various levels of self-governance. In addition, we might ask Clark how the Apostles would have directed us on how to vote on issues like same-sex marriage in society or a specific war.

The 2nd problem with Clark's approach concerns his strawman approach to the social gospel. It's a strawman approach because he portrays the social gospel and social justice as  monoliths that could be defined by the works of an individual such as Walter Rauschenbusch, in the case of the social gospel, and Karl Marx, in the case of social justice. Thus for Clark, the social gospel always involves the elimination of the actual Gospel and social justice is defined solely by the pagan influence of Karl Marx who promoted the idea of a utopia. Thus, according the Clark, the definitions of the social gospel and social justice are unchangeable.

Because the social gospel can only mean what Rauschenbush defined it to be and the same applies to social justice and Karl Marx, the development of thought in both subjects and the various approaches taken by others who followed them are ignored. In addition what seems to follow Clark's thinking here is that no new version of the social gospel or social justice can be developed by Christians who while borrowing from Rauschenbush and Marx, do not compromise on the Gospel.

Of course, in order for Clark to maintain his positions on the social gospel and social justice,  he has to account for the work of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement. This is his third problem because he doesn't really present a full picture of what King practiced and promoted. For there were no early Christian examples that were imitated by King when he worked against racism. Clark doesn't mention that King employed activism, civil disobedience, and calls for structural changes in society knowing that such changes could change some hearts while providing legal protection for Blacks from those who hearts would not change.  Thus, much of King's approach provides a counterexample to what Clark is calling for.
But Clark sweeps King's methods under the carpet of the sin of racism, which King was working against. Thus, what King did was acceptable because, according to Clark, he was calling us Christians to repent from racism, a way of viewing and treating people that is totally against the Scriptures. But what follows Clark's treatment of King is that racism is the only societal and individual sin that vindicates King. However, the way Clark tells the story, King seemed to be  only calling the Church to repent.

While Clark is rightly concerned with maintaining a faithfulness to preach the Gospel while interacting with society,  what he misses is this. Everything that the Church does and does not do becomes associated with the Gospel. Thus, regardless of whether the Church speaks out on social justice issues or follows some form of the social gospel, it becomes associated with the Gospel. That means that the Church's silence on social justice issues impacts the reputation of the Gospel. And that reputation, as seen by many non-Christians, is that while the Church excels at beating people up over indivudal sins, especially sexual sins, societal and state sins, including those sins that benefit the wealthy, are passed over. This seems to violate what James 2 talks about when he condemned favoritism. In addition, while the Church neglects to preach against societal and state sins, it passively aligns itself with wealth and power. And we should note that the Church had aligned itself with wealth and power in the pre-revolutionary times of the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions with disastrous for both the Church and the reputation of the Gospel.

We should note that while Clark rightly sees racism as something that must be spoken against by the Church, it isn't just because of how members of the Church should repent of the sin. In addition, many of the unjust actions pointed to by those promoting the social gospel and those working for social justice revolve around the commandments prohibiting murder and theft. For example, exploiting workers by underpaying them is a form of theft. In fact, one could say that such is a kind of the sin James condemns in James 5:1ff. And when the economic conditions caused by paying employees poverty wages causes early deaths in those employees or their dependents, then those promoting such conditions could also be charged with murder according to the Scriptures.
We should note that King also worked and crusaded against economic exploitation and poverty. In addition, he spoke against the Vietnam War as well. If King was correct in opposing racism, was he wrong in opposing that war? After all, he saw racism, war/militarism, and materialism/economic exploitation as being inextricably linked.
What Clark seems to miss in his approach to the social gospel and social justice is an awareness of an insularity he is promoting for the Church. For Clark, King was right to oppose racism because it was practiced in the Church. But the Church is not only to preach against the sins committed by Church members, it is to speak prophetically to society if it is to follow the examples of the OT prophets, and it is to do good. And while doing all of that, it needs to recognize the the differences in its responsibility to  society and the Church. And that fulfilling its responsibility to society, the Church is making positive associations with the Gospel that enhances its opportunities to preach the Gospel. And all of that can be done without compromising the Gospel.

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

October 9

To Walter McDougall and his blogpost on what was real conservatism during a time when America’s founding has become wholly corrupted both domestically and in foreign affairs. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

With America being poisoned by the source of energy of its economic system, which is greed, it is quite normal to ponder over the good old days along with the corollary of searching for its vanguards. But such pondering and searching amounts to nothing more than another waiting for Godot.

When was the good old days for America? That depends on with whom one is speaking. Certainly there are times when at least some Whites saw sunny weather and clear skies. But It is difficult to say whether such good old days were ever just overcast for Blacks while the plight of Native Americans has never even seen overcast conditions.

And if, in our nation's history, Native Americans and Blacks had never seen real good weather, where are the real conservatives of which the article above speaks?

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

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost that rightly  criticizes the Russian Revolution. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

If we read Rosa Luxemburg's criticisms of the government Lenin formed, maybe we would not be so quick to attribute the aftermath of the Russian Revolution to Socialism, or at least all Socialists. The October Revolution  was hijacked from the beginning and so it is difficult to say whether it started good and ended bad or whether it was bad from the beginning. Certainly, the conditions that spurred the need for revolution were significantly objectionable to the people. And we should note that those conditions were caused by an economic system that was a hybrid of a peasant economy with capitalism. And the capitalists' support of the war only made living conditions worse.

Who knows how socialism would have turned out to be if the Mensheviks didn't walkout of the 2nd All Russian Congress of the Soviet? But because they did, Bolshevism became a form of Communism, which is Socialism to some, that produced nothing more than just another form of a Tsarist dictatorship.  That is what Luxemburg rightly called a bourgeois dictatorship.

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

October 10

To Dylan Pahman and his blogpost on why Christopher Columbus gets too much blame for atrocities that occurred in the parts of the New World he “discovered.” This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Sorry, but it matters little whether one groups the settlers referred to with Columbus or not, their deeds as a whole are utterly reprehensible and enabled by Columbus's journey and his own leadership and conduct. If we include all that was written above with the history of how America was colonized, it indicts Western Civilization far too many to count atrocities conducted against non-whites. Thus, it is a great mystery as to why we should care about preserving Western culture Western Civilization's legacy.

And yes, since the mention of Columbus did not include all of his ventures in the New World, he did serve as a reprehensible person.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how the DOJ’s latest memo affirms our religious rights and liberty. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Besides the fact that some of these principles were already in play, we should note the reason for the DOJ's memo: it is to enable and protect religiously conservative Christians when, in their business ventures, they discriminate against the LGBT community. That keeps that part of the base in line despite Trump's failures both in judgment and morals.

Allowing religiously conservative Christians to discriminate against the LGBT community in society doesn't show a commitment to rights, it exhibits a devotion to reestablishing privilege for these same Christians.  For liberty deal with equality, privilege is used to marginalize others. Liberty - equality equals privilege, not rights. And nothing says that some religiously conservative Christians are seeking privilege more than their past opposition to same-sex marriage in society. It biblically right for them to prohibit same-sex marriage in churches that believe that the Bible is God's Word. I stand with them on that. But society is made up of a diverse group of people of which some are religiously conservative Christians. And when religiously conservative Christians opposed same-sex marriage, they were trampling over the religious rights of those whose religious beliefs accommodate or support same-sex marriage. And, in fact, some of the objections to the legalization of same-sex marriage included the fear that it would infringe on the religious rights of these same religiously conservative Christians. Those rights revolved around the freedom to marginalize, to various degrees, the LGBT community in society. And, as was said before, the DOJ memo helps keep these same religiously conservative Christians in the fold of those who support the President.

So the DOJ memo is not primarily concerned with rights as it is with poll numbers and the future votes of those who want to marginalize the LGBT community in society.