Comments Which Conservatives Block On Their Blogs For August 24, 2022

 Aug 17

To Stephen Spinnenweber and his article about how desires for same-sex relations are significantly more sinful that desires for unbiblical heterosexual relations. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The problem that some Christian traditionalists have is that they are either literally or virtually  substituting their pet traditions for the Scriptures. And that is what we see in the above article. Not once did the writer appeal to the Scriptures when discussing the issue concupiscence, not once. Rather, the appeals are made to some Reformed standards as if they were as canonical as the Scriptures are.

Another problem is that the above discussion shows little understanding of same-sex attraction and nature. Certainly we must agree with Paul when he states in Romans 1 that homosexuality goes against nature. But we need to be more precise there. Homosexuality goes against nature as God designed it. But since we see bisexuality in over 1,000 species of animals, what do we really know about what nature is saying to each individual person. What we see in the animal kingdom shows that nature has fallen from its original design. And so when someone claims that it is nature that has determined their sexual orientation or gender identity, that might very well be true, even though it provides no excuse before God. But since we are all subject in varying ways to a fallen nature, we need to be extremely careful in how we apply the nature argument to sexual issues. Here, we need to err on the side of compassion.

Finally, whether desires for unbiblical same-sex relations are worse than desires for unbiblical heterosexual relations depends on the context. After all, since both are sins, there is no significant difference when talking about whether one has sexual sins. Nor is there a significant difference between the two when the context is God's final judgment. But how should the difference between the two desires dictate how we treat fellow Christians or regard ourselves in the Church in terms of how much we can participate? There is not answer explicit answer to that question in the above article.  But that article seems to be based on a specific issue; with a particular agenda. Therefore, the general way in which concupiscence is discussed in the above article is really unhelpful. It can promote a lot of unfair and unfounded treatments of fellow believers who might be struggling with unbiblical sexual desires or gender dysphoria. The writer needs to write the above article with a specific application in mind in order to avoid encouraging Christians to respond wrongly to the differences that exist between desiring unbiblical same-sex relations and desiring unbiblical heterosexual relations.

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

To Sir Roger Scruton and his blogpost praised Western Civilization and tried debunk criticisms of it. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

If we judge any civilization by how it  treats its own, one could make a case for many civilizations to be on par with Western Civilization. Of course the same case could have been made for Nazi Germany while it was winning WW II. And this is where Gandhi's famous quote about Western Civilization comes in to play. In responding to a reporter's question about what he thought of Western Civilization, Gandhi said in response: 'I think it would be a good idea.'

Perhaps Gandhi was thinking of what Frederick Douglas wrote about what July 4th meant to the slave when he gave that response:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.

Whose view of celebrating July 4th should have held sway then? Was it the white citizens of America because what America had done for them or was it the slave's view of America because of what America had done to them? Perhaps what Jesus said in Matthew 5:43-47 could answer the question:

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

Now the odd thing about using Jesus's quote here is that the quote would seem to apply to them more than the white audience who were listening to Douglas speak. After all, while they were not the enemy of America's part of Western Civilization, America's part of Western Civilization was an enemy to them. So think about what Jesus's quote would mean to America's part of Western Civilization back then

And while there is no slavery today, there is still systemic racism, abuse, and exploitation  of people of color inside our borders while there is militarization, exploitation, and dependence on both the rule of force and tyrants outside of them. As for the European part, there is still dependence on results of past colonialism and both the rule of force and foreign tyrants for its welfare.  Though we should add that the European sector of Western Civilization seems to have fewer old bad habits within their own borders  than the American sector.

We can't judge a civilization without looking at all of its most significant relationships. And so when we look at how Western Civilization related to its outsiders and marginalized people, Western Civilization is found sorely wanting.. And it is only a fragile ego that seeks to compensate for its self-doubts by so easily praising itself in the light of its history of how it treated others.

But heck, if some here must be praised to feel good about themselves, there are no words that could be said which could give them reason for pause in celebrating themselves and their heritage.

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

To J.F. Solís for the part of his article that was quoted in Heidelblog which mocks Greg Johnson for talking about the struggles that same-sex attracted Christians have in living the Christian life.  This part of Solís's article was quoted in a heidelblog post.

Besides the fact that the article cited comes from a very rigid Roman Catholic view of both sex and celibacy, we should note that what was quoted shows the writer's disdain for and disgust with people like Greg Johnson. So what if Johnson's claim about gay celibate Christians having given up 'everything the world values' is just a little bit of an overstatement. What is at the heart of the matter is the struggle that same-sex attracted Christians have over a part of our lives that produces one of the strongest grips on thinking and behavior of all of us: sex. So while Solís, because of his rigid thinking, mocks Johnson by saying that indeed the world does not value sodomy, the real issue is that what the world very much values is not sodomy per se, but sexual intimacy. And why Solís did not pick up on that is both a bit shocking but not mysterious.

What the article cited as well as Heidelblog, which quoted this particular part of the article, are demonstrating here is a fear and perhaps even hatred for those from the LGBT community, especially those who claim to be Christians. And this is where we need to warn Solís, Heidelblog, and those who could favorably relate to Solís's views about the lessons to be learned from the parable of the two men praying (Luke 18:9-14). If we are always in such desperate need for God's mercy, as Reformed Theology teaches us,  and if, as James mentions in the second chapter of his epistle, that we need to show mercy rather than judgment because we are all lawbreakers, which is a point that Paul also made in Romans 2, then this distain for, disgust with, fear and hatred for those Christians who are struggling with their sexuality goes against the grain of believing the Gospel. Yes, sexual purity as defined by the Scriptures is essential for each Christian and in the Church. But so is treating all fellow believers with the same grace and mercy that God continually shows us in Christ.

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

Aug 18

To Leila Miller for the part of her article that was quoted in Heidelblog which warned us not to be fooled by people who are nice but might be giving us wrong theology. 

Leila Miller's full article can be found at:

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2022/dont-be-fooled-by-nice

One doesn't have to believe what a friendly nice person says to you to appreciate their warmth. Genuine warmth should always be celebrated regardless of what they are saying.

My fear is that in trying to avoid overestimating being nice, too many fellow Reformed Christians fail to understand the fruit of the spirit and the charge to correct people with gentleness because of our own weaknesses and failures.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 10, 2021

 Nov 5

To W. Robert Godfrey and his lesson about what is going on today. In this lesson, discussed gender identification and what happens when the Church aligns itself with or obtains great wealth. This was posted on the Abounding Grace website (see https://agradio.org  )

Should note two things here. First, the idea of there are more than two genders is not exclusive to today's Western Civilization. Some Native American tribes recognized up to 5 different genders. We should note that their different gender identifications do not necessarily translate easily into the model being employed now in America.

The different gender identifications found among the Native Americans should partially help us in understanding gender identification in our own society. It should at least tell us that gender identification issues aren't unique to the current course of Western Civilization. But we should also note one other thing. That is that though one's biological sex plays a factor in gender identification, it isn't the only source of influence on one's gender identification. And that has been shown in multiple civilizations. Thus, and this applies to both sides of the debate, we can't equate biological sex with gender identification. That while one's biological sex is based solely on the physical, one's gender identification is based on factors in addition to one's biological sex.

The other point should be made is this. While Godfrey rightly talks negatively about the problems that occur when the Church has or is closely connected to great wealth, today's religiously conservative American Christians, through their loyalty to the Republican Party, are politically siding with great wealth. So how is it that religiously conservative Christians in America have escaped the trap, which Godfrey mentions, that has captured the Church in the past? Here we should note that the dominant branches of the Church in some of the nations that experienced revolutions in the past few centuries were siding with wealth and power at the time. Three examples of that siding occurred in the pre-revolutionary times of France, Russia, and Spain.

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

Nov 9

To Bradley Birzer and his article on freedom and the beginning of Western Civilization. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

For all of the nobility ascribed to Western Civilization, it is clear that there is a great disconnect between that and our history. 

If we take America for example and how it was allegedly based on Judeo-Christian tradition, on what part of that tradition was white supremacy based? In seeking more and more land at the expense of the way of life and even the lives of Native Americans, what was the good being sought? For each Black person who was brought or born here to be bought and owned as property, what ideals were being pursued? Or when Jim Crow replaced Slavery or when systemic racism still lingered after the end of Jim Crow, what morals were being pursued?

And what should we say about Europe with its constant wars over land and religion? What about European imperialism and colonization? What should we say about England's separation of Church and state when people came here to escape its religious persecution only to start persecuting those from other denominations once they got here? 

Why is it that the above article only associates idealism with Western Civilization and  neglects to mention that horrific atrocities were part of history of Western Civilization? Why is that? Perhaps it is because we long to pray the prayer of the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying (Luke 18:9-14). For it seems that the only freedom being sought by apologists for Western Civilization is the freedom from having to look into a non-magic mirror. For the measure of our nobility is found not in how we treat our own, but in how we treat others.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 10, 2020

June 3

To the Cranch blog in response to the article calling on us to live Western Civilization. The comment below was a response to question I asked on that blogpost that no one was willing to answer because I called Western Civilization, white people civilization.  This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos

Since no one wanted to answer the questions and Steve B. pointed out that neither have I will answer the questions for myself. I will replace the phrase 'white people civilization' with 'Western Civilization.'

#1. How do we want to preserve Western Civilization?
I don't think we should. That doesn't mean that we should throw everything away. Western Civilization is a mixed bag consisting of both good and bad. And we should not allow what is bad in Western Civilization to cause a phobic reaction that would cause us to toss out all that comes from Western Civilization.

Thus, if we are conscious of preserving Western Civilization by living it, not only could we be too hesitant to tossing out the bad parts of Western Civilization in order to maintain enough of it, we will limit how much we allow other civilizations to contribute to our current civilization lest we drift too far away from what some identify as Western Civilization.

#2. Do we want to exclusively keep Western Civilization so that we receive no influences from the civilizations of other races?
No. The real issue isn't staying with the traditions and ideas of Western Civilization even if we filter those traditions and ideas so that we stay only with the positive ones from Western Civilization. The real issue is will we learn what is necessary to survive or even improve. So we should welcome any traditions and ideas regardless of the source if they help us to survive or improve. Also, as we borrow from other civilizations, we have a better inroad into sharing what is positive about Western Civilization.

#3 Do we want to teach that Western Civilization was all good, all bad or a mix?
Again, the answer to that question is found in the answer to question #1. To claim that Western Civilization is all good denies what the Scriptures say about our sinfulness. To say that it is all bad is to deny a lot of history. To say that is a mix satisfies both history and the Scriptures.

#4. And if we want to teach that Western Civilization is a mix, what degree of good and evil should we assign to it?
That question is best answered in a respect back and forth discussion by people who have varied viewpoints.

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

June 4

To R. Scott Clark’s blogpost that contained a Project Veritas report on Antifa. This  appeared in Heidelblog.

The first description I would use on the video is 'over dramatic.' Why? It is because I knew most of what was in the video by simply conversing with Antifa at May Day events. I saw them and talked with them before they became known to the public. I knew what they were about and I purposely avoided walking with them in demonstrations.

Antifa is way too small to pose any threat to civil liberties. They believe that they are in a repeat of the pre Nazi Germany years when the Communists and the Nazis had street battles. Thus, they see violence as necessary to battle fascism. But they are not there to fight just anyone, they are there to fight those whom they consider to be fascists or fascist supporters. Other than that, they might practice some destruction of property during events. I am sure if they have on the events I went to because I had left those events early.

But there are other groups that believe that violence is necessary to install needed change in, or overthrow of, the system. I have run into some Stalinists who also believe that they can change things through violence. In 2017, the ADL release reports that stated that right-wing terrorist groups had conducted 150 acts of terrorism in the past 25 years (see https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-report-exposes-right-wing-terrorism-threat-in-the-us   ).  Odd that while reporting on the use of violence to stifle rights, that that wasn't mentioned.

Black Bloc was a group that we in Occupy were concerned about. Since we were anti-violence, we didn't want them to participate with us. And before Black Bloc, there were anarchists who wore facial coverings to hide their identities not because of the violence they would sometimes practice, but because they were sometimes harassed or attacked after returning from protests. One can learn these things just by asking questions while in public places.

BTW, there are 3 more things to mention here. The FBI has found no evidence linking to the unrest in the current protests over the murder of George Floyd to Antifa (see https://www.ajc.com/news/fbi-finds-evidence-antifa-involvement-national-unrest/qVI3U9wb8Q6u1QEvVsJ7AJ/  ). I would not expect any violence from them in this setting. Also, some of the violence and destruction of property is being practiced by right-wing groups or individuals who want to sabotage the protests. That is some of the violence and destruction, not all. Finally, people who are concerned about passing on reliable information should check the factual reporting ratings of their source. The following link provides such a rating for Project Veritas (see  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/  ).

Finally, for a group to pose an emerging threat, it has to have a sufficient number of members. That has been the problem with Antifa, Black Bloc, and the anarchists. Their numbers are way to small, and have always been that way since I have been an activist. So I would not describe them as an emerging threat to our civil liberties at this time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 5

To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost that gives a list of references on social justice and racism. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Though there are enough significant criticisms to be made about the set resources on racism referenced above, perhaps one of the most the telling weaknesses of the set of references above is that none of the resources dealing with race come from anyone who suffers as a victim of racism. And that is despite the acknowledgment made in one of the articles that those of us who are white don't experience racism while those who are Black do.

In essence, one of the weaknesses of the set of above resources on racism is that it is like a priest who provides marriage counseling. How is it that a person who has never experienced racism as a victim can tell us enough about racism to know how to properly think about and respond to it? Here we see that theology enables him to do so. And thus, we see one of the purposes of theology to some Christian teachers. That purpose is to give them a seat of honor above and a position of influencing  others. Hopefully that isn't the case here.

What Is The New False Gospel

After some delays, we finally get to finish reviewing a 3 part series by Thabiti Anyabwile on Social Justice (click here for the article). And unfortunately, this last article serves as a bit of a disappointment because of its lack of depth.

In the article being reviewed, Anyabwile reviews the claims of Tom Ascol as he sounds a red alert alarm on what he sees the new threat/new gospel to be for the Church (click here to here his presentation). Ascol emphatically states that the new threat to and the new gospel for the church is social justice especially as it is taught in cultural Marxism. Ascol makes it sound like this threat is both wide if not deep. He makes it sound like social justice is invading most of our neighborhood churches.

To be specific, Ascol says that the influence of social justice and cultural Marxism is introducing godless ideologies that are dictating to us how we should view reality. From Marxism comes the notion that we divide the world into the oppressor groups and oppressed groups. Cultural Marxism redefines these groups from economic classes to marginalized groups of people. Thus, this new teaching is telling us to discard the old ways of ordering society. And it is teaching us to see the oppressor, straight white males who are cisgendered as the enemy who, along with his view of reality and authority structures, must be overthrown. And all of that is done in the name of equality according to social justice teachings
 
And though Anyabwile's response is accurate, it is shallow. Anyabwile answers Ascol's concerns by saying that there is a larger and more organized anti-social justice movement in the conservative churches than a social justice movement. In fact, Anyabwile states that there is no social justice movement in the conservative churches.  There might be some individuals who are involved, but there is certainly no organized movement in the conservative churches toward social justice. And from my experiences and observations, he right.

Thus, Ascol is crying wolf on whether the conservative churches are being threatened with social justice especially as it is approached from the cultural Marxist perspective. But such a response does little to review the claims made and perspective held by Ascol. That is what makes Anyabwile's response shallow.

What would be a better response to Ascol's alarm? First, we should look at what Ascol seems to be so scared of. His complaint is not just that there is some secular invasion of ideas into the Church, but how we look at reality from a Western Civilization point of view is being challenged. That means old ways of ordering societies, old authority structures, the place of white men as being oppressors, and Judeo-Christian values must be recognized and changed. The last item seems to be out of place because Judaism rejects the most basic of Christian values: the status of Jesus as being both God and man who came to save His people from their sins. So what Ascol must mean by Judeo-Christian values is God's law and how society must be ruled by that.

Second, what we see in Ascol's perspective is a canonization of the old status quo in which he grew up and a demonization of a possibly emerging status quo. Canonizing the way one grew up and demonizing the new that challenges much of what one grew up with is as old as the hills. But that itself does not really say what needs to be said about Ascol's views here. For what Ascol does is to approach both the old status quo and the new challenge from social justice from a cultural Marxist perspective in all-or-nothing way of thinking. That is what produces Ascol's canonization of the old status quo with its regard for Western Civilization and his demonization of challenges of the old status quo by social justice from a cultural Marxism perspective.

Thus, it is Ascol's all-or-nothing approach to both the old status quo and the new social justice view that is the problem. And if we compare Ascol's approach to the old status quo and to cultural Marxism with Martin Luther King Jr.'s approach to Marxism, we easily see why Anyabwile's review of Ascol is shallow and why Ascol overstates his case.

When King compared Marxism with the then status quo, he said the following: 'Historically capitalism failed to see the truth in collective enterprise and Marxism failed to see truth in individual enterprise.'  In other words, King does not take a black-white approach to either the then status quo or the challenge of Marxism. And citing William Temple, a former archbishop of Canterbury, King repeated his observation that Marxism is a 'Christian Heresy.' By that he meant that Marx had combined some essential truths of Christianity with beliefs that must be rejected by every Christian. But again, King is avoiding this all-or-nothing approach to either the then status quo or the Marxism of his day as exemplified in the communism of the Soviet Union (click here for the source).

Another way of approaching Ascol's point of view is to modify a statement King said while opposing the Vietnam War (click here for the source):

The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

If we replace the word 'Western' with a fill-in-the-black, can we not see the fault of Ascol's line of thought here. Certainly social justice and cultural Marxism has much to learn from Christianity. But are we daring to deny that that we religiously conservative Christians have things to learn from social justice and cultural Marxism? Or are we assuming, despite Church history and the problems that were so much a part of Western Civilization, that our knowledge of the Bible as well as our embracing of Western Civilization means that we have nothing to learn from social justice and cultural Marxism? Again, that question challenges us to not approach either the old status quo and cultural Marxism in an all-or-nothing manner.

Generally I like what Anyabwile writes. But his response to Ascol lacked depth and dependence on how others have responded to similar challenges. And just because Ascol has well overstated his case, that doesn't mean that we should ignore all of his warnings. But what we should challenge him to do is to look out for competing and threatening ideologies that come not from the new, but from the old status quo in which he grew up.



 

Is Our Problem Exclusivity Or Inclusivity?

If one bothers to visit conservative blogs and read what they have to say about the latest PC purges, one would realize that we have battle going on for the hearts and mind of not just our young people in college, but for the rest of us too. So it would be appropriate to introduce the fighters in this contest. In the one corner, we have authoritarian defenders of the traditional study of Western Civilization. In the other corner, we have the narcissistic Post Modernists with their blanket and complete rejection of all previously existing metanarratives. In the end, what we really have are two sides of the same coin. But such a statement would be strongly resented by members of both groups.

A number of articles have been written on the conservative blogs defending the traditional study of Western Civilization as well as Western Civilization itself. The expressed fear is that our changing times will take away all that unites us and made Western Civilization so great. The article that will be reviewed here is one of the better ones because it makes some very legitimate points. It is written by Carl Trueman from Westminster Theological Seminary (click here for a short bio).  

In the article being reviewed here (click here for the article), Trueman very appropriately laments the reduction in the legitimate study of the humanities in colleges today. This is especially true when it comes to his specialty: history. For it is through the study of history that has helped Trueman know himself better and we would do well to imitate him here. And both his lament and his experience with history are well worth noting. For what we see in Post Modernism is a wholesale rejection of the driving forces from the past. And if I remember Christopher Lasch's book The Culture Of Narcissism correctly, the cutting of of all ties from the past results in the elevation of the present and, eventually, the self and one's experiences and insights over  those of those who lived then.

So while what Trueman is saying has much legitimacy, there is a problem. The problem is illustrated in the following line:

We should not be fooled by the fads of the new educational order. The rebarbative and impenetrable language of deconstruction, post-colonialism, and critical theory may offer a veneer of sophistication, but the fruits of these are remarkably simple-minded...

 Trueman's  total rejection of Post Modernism as seen in his attacks on deconstruction and post-colonialism shows, a filtering of what he considers to be legitimate analysis of Western Civilization. For in his wholesale rejection of Post Modernism, he not only imitates Post Modernists with their cutting of all ties from a given time period, he is limiting his study of Western Civilization to that which is from the inside. For we should note, and at least partially agree with, Post Modernism's rejection of the use of past metanarratives to support imperialism, post-colonialism, oppression, and, citing one of Jesus's warnings, lording it over others. Just as with Marx, we can legitimately not like most or all of Post Modernism's solution to the problem, but to reject its analysis of the problems that stem from the past is to say that those who ruled in the past have no sin that we should pay attention to today. And to deny their sin involves a denial that there were any tradeoffs involved in securing the "greatness" from the past. And, ironically for Trueman, to reject Post Modernism's analysis is to deny oneself from a source that can teach us about our humanity just as much as his traditional approach to studying history can.
 
We should also note the authoritarian nature of Trueman's rejection of the parts of Post Modernism that he so spitefully rejects. First, his rejection is a blanket rejection. which is an example of black-white thinking. Second, his rejection is aggressive because Post Modernism challenges what is accepted tradition for him.

So we should note how authoritarian defenders of the traditional study of Western Civilization and the narcissistic PC Post Modernists resemble each other. Each side exalts their favorite time period over that of the other side in black-white terms. Thus, each side does what Martin Luther King Jr. described the West as doing when it used military intervention in Vietnam (click here for the source):

The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

Here we should note that we can substitute the names of either of these two groups for the word Western and King's quote would still fit like a glove. So we should note ,for future growth, that both authoritarianism and narcissism are not just bad for us and thus traits or ways of being to avoid, but that they can produce very similar results.

Two more points should be made. First, while Trueman seems to attribute all attacks on the humanities in college to that of his nemesis, the narcissistic, PC Post Modernists, my experience in teaching tells me something else. My experience and observation told me that colleges were being businessfied in many ways with the result of turning many institutions of higher education into high priced, advanced tech schools. With that comes a higher emphasis on what one's job and salary are after graduation over what one learned about what it means to be human. Here, we should repeat and emphasize that Trueman's concern with learning what it means to be human and understand one's self is very legitimate. And by so easily businessfying our colleges, we are embracing the loss of what it means to be human in order to make more money after graduation.

The second point that should be made is this: since we used one of Martin Luther King's statements to illustrate what was happening, we would do well to take an approach that King would take to any conflict between opposing sides. What King so often tried to do was to synthesize the best parts of each side. Since he did that when comparing Capitalism and Communism, there is no reason why we can't seek to synthesize the concerns of the traditional study of Western Civilization with that of Post Modernism. Such a synthesis would help us to learn more about ourselves and each other than what either Post Modernism or what a traditional study of Western Civilization could teach us by themselves.

What Drives Our Denial

Perhaps the best way to summarize Western Civilization with its multiple imperialisms is to read Bartolomé De La Casas as he described the behavior of many Spaniards on the island of Hispaniola after Columbus discovered the land. He stated that the reason for the murderous behavior of the Christians on the island was to, as quickly as possible, garner for themselves as much of an unmerited amount of wealth as possible.¹

This description is not only a shoe that fits the feet of the Spaniards who took possession of the islands in the Caribbean, and it not only fits the feet of all Europeans who engaged in imperial behavior by conquering land and people for their king or themselves, it fits the behavior of today's Western nations.

For example, think about one of the most often used defenses for American Capitalism. We are told that it has brought about the greatest wealth in the history of the world. And what is implied by such a declaration is that the argument is over and there is no need to consider any other factors. Thus, we are not to ask at whose expense did our riches come. We are not told about the interventions that installed proxy governments nor are we told about the trade agreements that have caused farmers from other countries to go out of business while trying to compete with our subsidized agribusinesses. And though we hear about the sweatshop labor that manufactures many of the trinkets which we find so captivating, we become personally disconnected from their plight. 

Or we could look at how Americans generally regard the Global Warming debate. For if we took the global warming warnings seriously, then we would have to significantly change our lifestyles. We could no longer let profit and consumption reign as king and queen of our economy. Those with wealth, and this would include many from the Middle Class, would have to scale back their lifestyle and, to prevent those who already live in poverty from doing the same, would have to share with others. In fact, our whole country would have to cut back on consumption and even some production in order to give people from poorer countries a chance to improve their lives. 

But such is not the American Dream. For the American Dream consists of accumulating as much wealth for oneself as one can so that one can build their own "fantasy island." On that island, luxuries isolate one from the outside world. For the American Dream is about individual success living for oneself. So accepting the warnings about Global Warming will involve giving up on a significant part of the American Dream. Thus, accepting the Global Warming warnings will result in recognizing the welfare of others and making sacrifices for them rather than living just for ourselves. For it means that we buy less for ourselves and try to ensure that others will have more.

Life is simpler when one only has to worry about oneself. And that same life can seem more inviting when it is about accumulating experiences and riches. So when ugly truths about the exploitation of others and environmental problems start to force their way into our field of vision, we see them as a threat to our own status quo and peace of mind. We view these truths as telling us that the party is over and it is now time to get serious. But the party beckons us to stay. We have many more pleasures to experience, the party tells us. And so what we decide to do comes down whether we are willing to say to ourselves, "enough is enough." We have to choose between getting more and settling for less so others can have more. Thus, this choice of ours determines what we will be willing to believe.


References

1. The Devastation Of The Indies; A Brief Account (1542) by Bartolomé De La Casas, printed in Voices Of A People's History Of The United States, edited by Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove, pg 37
   or for an exact quote, click this video link

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For Jan 15, 2014

This is a new category of posts. It is dedicated to those conservative blogs that have blocked my comments for various reasons. The blogpost of blocked comments will appear every Wednesday when the blog is not taking a break


Jan 9

to Jennifer Marshall on her blogpost in gospel coalition blogpost on helping the poor

Certainly, some of what is written in this article is important in helping the poor. Family and church as well as business and government participation is important. Programs to connect people who are successful with those in prison or poverty are important.

But it is also important to be specific as to where we have seen failures. And while Conservative Christians who write about poverty have had no problems associating poverty with families headed by single parents, we do have problems highlighting the roles that business and government play in producing poor people. For example, businesses that pay poverty wages should listen to what Martin Luther King Jr. said when speaking to the strikers in Memphis, Tennessee:

"it is criminal to have people working on a full-time basis and a full-time job getting part-time income." (click here for source). 

Or perhaps we can talk about poverty from the cost of living side. Today's food speculation, which unnecessarily increases the cost of food and thus the cost of living and predatory loans from the past which along with the fraud involved with the housing bubble caused many families to lose their homes contribute to poverty. 

Or perhaps we can talk about businesses that outsource their jobs to other countries because those countries allow these companies to abuse and underpay their employees. Paying poverty wages and the outsourcing of jobs to other countries are significant factors that play a role in poverty on the personal income side of the problem. 

And we have to remember government's role in letting businesses treat people this way. 

All of this leads to something else Martin Luther King Jr. said about showing compassion to the poor, 

"True compassion is more than just flipping a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." (click here for source).

So while businesses defend their part in creating and maintaining poverty by saying that they must cut pay, in one way or another, to stay competitive or to be responsible to their stockholders, we need to ask if such a system is unjust. The same goes for those businesses that benefit from causing unnecessary increases in the cost of living. Because if it is, we must demand that the system repents and change so that a few don't grow rich at the expense of the many. And those in the middle class must use additional criteria to how the wealthiest among us are doing to determine if we have a  successful and prosperous economy.

So far, the Conservative Church has offered suggestions on how to alleviate poverty while keeping the current system as it is. Thus the necessary challenges that those in business and government need to hear of often muted, and this is especially true for those in business. And though what was suggested above is good, especially that which entail personal involvement with those who are poor, these suggestions will only be responding to rather than also eliminating what causes poverty. And as important and well thought out as these suggestions are, they will only tell us how to put better bandaids on a person than how to also remove a person from harm's way.

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

Jan 11


To Robert Royal's blogpost on Western Civilization on the Imaginative Conservative blog


What is the purpose for all of this rambling about Western Civilization? Is it to have a measuring contest between our contributions vs the death and destruction we've wrought? And who is going to determine the winner of this measuring contest? Should it be those who are on the Western Civilization team or should outsiders be asked whether the good we've done outweighs the bad? And if Westerners are the ones determining the tradeoffs, how honest can us be about ourselves? Does what we say about our own civilization and history reflect more on who we are today or who we have been over time? And what would be the purpose of such a contest? Would it be to decide whether Western Civilization should cease or how it should continue its journey? 

My struggle with this reflecting on Western Civilization is that it somewhat separates us from other civilizations and what we can learn from them. It lessens the connections we could have with those outside of our own group. And if we have any degree of loyalty for and pride in belonging to Western Civilization, it makes us defensive and less honest about the winner of the previously mentioned measuring contest.

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