The Jennifer Keaton case provides a rich example.  And one need not extrapolate anything obtuse or indefinite.  No strange or conspiratorial abstractions are necessary.  One only need quote the lawyers on this side of the issue.

Fact 1:  The only person prohibited from doing anything is  Keaton.  She is not allowed to either continue her education while maintaining her belief system nor is she allowed the professional credential necessary to participate and succeed in her field of choice.

Fact 2:  The university is requiring remediation of beliefs in order to attain the desired degree.  Were the university to grant the credential of her desired degree, the university would lose nothing. 

But to the lawyers.  This quote is not from some nobody.  Joshua Block is "staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT Project" and this makes him a representative of the position of the ACLU on these matters.  He says:

Last Friday, a federal court of appeals issued an important decision, setting limits on the right to use religion to discriminate. The case concerned Jennifer Keeton, a student enrolled in a graduate school counseling program who told her faculty that "as a high school counselor confronted by a sophomore student in crisis, questioning his sexual orientation, she would tell the student that it was not okay to be gay." Augusta State University, where Ms. Keeton was enrolled, ultimately expelled her from the program after she indicated she would be unable to counsel without imposing her religious views on her clients.

That makes one point plain:  The position of the court, the school, and the ACLU, is that the Christian belief system and ethic is not acceptable within this profession.  Carte blanche has been given to other universities to add therapy for those holding the Christian belief system.


He also says:

The ACLU filed a brief arguing that a student who declares her intent to violate the university's professional standards through her conduct does not have a constitutional right to a court order requiring the university to let her work with clients.

This is more than clear.  The ACLU believes that the presence of Christian morality has no place within the four walls of the university.  It is a Christianity-free zone.  Give up your Christianity and you may enter.

Just as a medical school would be permitted to bar a student who refused to administer blood transfusions for religious reasons from participating in clinical rotations, so ASU may prohibit Keeton from participating in its clinical practicum if she refuses to administer the treatment it has deemed appropriate. Every profession has its own ethical codes and dictates. When someone voluntarily chooses to enter a profession, he or she must comply with its rules and ethical requirements. Lawyers must present legal arguments on behalf of their clients, notwithstanding their personal views. Judges must apply the law, even when they disagree with it. So too counselors must refrain from imposing their moral and religious values on their clients.

Ethics?  I wonder what is their ethical foundation?  But that's another discussion.  What is important here is that the ACLU is becoming even  clearer in their religious bigotry.  Faith need not be accommodated or tolerated.  No disagreement is allowed when it comes to the homosexual agenda.

My main point here is to the homosexual community, and it's not what you might think.  When it comes to arbitrary class designations, be careful.  The benefits of class are as easily arbitrarily removed as they are arbitrarily granted.  Take the case of the two black girls last year who attacked the corss-dresser in their restroom.  They fought to defend their dignity and almost got charged with a hate crime.  It seems that the homosexual class takes precedence over other class designations -- in that case both black and female.  The homosexual community is being used for political gain and nothing more.  It is being used to manipulate society for the advantage of communist organizations (ACLU) and socialists (today's liberals in general) as they seek to incite revolution.  Do not be surprised if you are called on to "occupy" something and disrupt society for no clear purpose or end.  That is the ultimate status of a pawn.  And you are almost there.

Here's a thought.  More of a thought experiment -- just a starting point.  The idea is that conservatism, at least in the U.S., is a populist movement while liberalism is a magisterial movement.  That's reformation-type of language.  Some history might be useful here.

Liberalism in the US was the grander system of governance proposed.  Self-government itself is a liberal concept and the US was largely influenced by the several French schools.  Certainly Rousseau among others.

But how did conservatism come to the U.S?  Russel Kirk calls ours a conservative revolution as it found strong popular support in the positions of Edmund Burke.  For instance, in dealing with the matter of excessive taxation ...

Soon, Burke became embroiled in a different political controversy. He and other Whigs charged the advisors of King George with funding the election of "placemen" to seats in the House of Commons. The king had appointed these individuals to government-paid jobs that had few or no real duties. Burke claimed that these "friends of the king" were conspiring to control the House of Commons and Pitt’s government.
Although historians tend to doubt this "conspiracy" amounted to much, Burke wrote a pamphlet on what he believed was royal tampering with the traditional roles of king and Parliament. "When bad men combine," he wrote, "the good must associate, else they will fall, one by one." 

And this not far from the position of today's Tea Party or the specifically "social" conservative movement.

I seems that, at least at first glance, the tax revolt represented popular and commercial "conservative" ideals while the actual governing structure was "liberal" in philosophy.  At least in today's language.

I wonder if the tension we have today is just a continuation of a tension that existed two centuries ago.  Your thoughts?

Electioneering
Here in Ohio there is a battle brewing about congressional redistricting.  Here are the current map and the proposed map.


As you can see many of the districts are changing significantly.  Some are changed very little.  Both look gerrymandered significantly.  Both parties, after all, are about electing candidates and both will secure their relative significance.  And this stuff is about maintaining electability (or virtual non-loss) by an agreed-upon number for each party.  Some districts will be up for grabs but some will have a certain outcome.  That's what redistricting is all about.  So have the Republicans done anything that the Democrats have not done?  Na.  It's just that nobody likes to lose.

Stupidity and Willful Ignorance
Gary Younge describes the strong conservatives in the Republican party as "very wing of the party that had become so openly and virulently racist" that "they shouldn’t have" found a place for Herman Caine.  Does Younge even know what "conservative" means -- a definition that lies outside of the pro-communist folks he is writing for?  I hope he describes the anti-Jewish behavior (not the rhetoric) of Obama in the same terms -- but I won't hold my breath.

Then there is the ever-wrong voice of Fred Clarkson.  First he quotes Rick Perry:

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.  As president, I'll end Obama's war on religion.  And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.

Now let's wait and see if there ever arises an actual definition for "dominionism" which is deemed acceptable outside of political punditry.  If it means "the institution of theological law" that might have a place.  Some might even extend it to "law first informed by theology" and going further, "law first informed by a theological ethic" though that is pretty vague and hard to control.

I wonder how corrections to bad history (teaching that all our founders were hard Deists), teaching that a government free of religious influence was the intention of all the founders, or that "democracy" trumps "republic" as our form of government.  There is much to fix.  And though Perry's remarks amount to little more than campaign blabber, they do not represent a theonomy.  There are reasonable voices which will continue to work against the ongoing secularization of culture -- which is in no way the domain of the federal government.  History has had enough of Rousseau's damage.

Cross-posted at Evangelical Perspective.

For decades the pro-life movement has been talking about progressive eugenics.  From long before Sanger, but reaching its peak with 1930s US and European policies, the eugenics movement has gone from distinction to an endemic philosophy.  Today it haunts science with its utilitarian mask and proclaims that it can produce the sort of people that are most productive and beneficial.  It is all about creating "Captain America" through science.  Science, that is, as Reason without the need to answer to Theism.

Rock Center reports about eugenics in North Carolina.

Elaine Riddick was 13 years old when she got pregnant after being raped by a neighbor in Winfall, N.C., in 1967.  The state ordered that immediately after giving birth, she should be sterilized.  Doctors cut and tied off her fallopian tubes.

“I have to carry these scars with me.  I have to live with this for the rest of my life,” she said.

Riddick was never told what was happening.  “Got to the hospital and they put me in a room and that’s all I remember, that’s all I remember,” she said.  “When I woke up, I woke up with bandages on my stomach.”

Can you read this without seeing it as racist, or at least elitist/classist?  The language of "feeble" and "promiscuous" comes straight out of Sanger[1].  Certain behaviors are unacceptable and certain people are to be treated as inferior.

But these things do not happen any more, do they?  Riddick was in 1967.  Have things changed?  Not much.  In the 1990s (though it might have been in the late 1980s) Oklahoma treated black children with spina bifida differently, and the courts supported it.  It never became a scandal because the children were black.

Many know of the work of Jill Stanek in exposing infanticide within the abortion industry.

Not much has changed.

This is a time for education.  When you talk to proponents of abortion, mention Riddick.  And when you talk to Christians who have suffered because of this progressive deception, proclaim forgiveness, mercy, and most of all grace.  And when you talk to women in general who have also suffered:  The message is the same.

Also posted at Evangelical Perspective.

---

[1] See Margaret Sanger: A Life of Passion by Jean H. Baker.  Baker notes that "there were political reasons for Americans to accept sterilization that grew out of progressive attempts to provide protection for the poor.  Along with criminals whose antisocial instincts were no believed inherited by their children, the unfit were becoming expensive in an era that was installing programs and institutions to support those who could not take care of themselves."  Sanger was a progressive through and through.

You've seen little children exclaim their love for Mommy and Daddy.  With outstretched arms and a beautiful smile they proclaim their love "This much."  It's a joy for any parent to receive, and joy for the child to give, and even a joy to watch.  Some things are soooo special that they cannot but be appreciated by all.

Some hearts are filled with hate.  There are those who hate the Christian faith so much that they will make the most ridiculous remarks.  Often for silly political points.  Tim Tebow must be a bad football player because he is a Christian.  After all, "all the charisma, good looks, and athleticism in the world won’t help you play quarterback in the NFL if you can’t throw a football."  Of course The Nation, Stalinists that they are, frame everything according to politics -- even faith.

Those familiar with the nature of leftist politics know that power is the key to their method.   While all political methods require the use of power to accomplish their desired ends, the left differs from all others because it portends to be informed by Reason instead of Faith.  Because Reason reigns there is no moral authority, no God and Judge, to which the Left will answer.  Reason stands opposed to the Christian faith.  Always has and always will.

So they proclaim "hypocrisy" because because of Tebow's Superbowl message.  They call it "right wing" and "politics" while whining about being "silenced."  Ok.  Will The Nation allow editorials by Al Mohler or Joe Carter or Sarah Flashing or Nancy Pearcey or ... any of the other intelligent conservative voice?  Na.  And we don't whine about it either.  Why?  Because we don't need to support Stalinists.  The nation does not need The Nation.

Read a little more over at Evangelical Perspective.

This person, Joe Wright, should be investigated.  At a minimum.  One just does not say these things out loud.  A call for assassinations is outrageous!  Where is law enforcement?  FBI?  And who was it that Liked this post?



cross-posted at Evangelical Perspective

It is a given that church life cannot be restricted to the four walls of our facilities.  The Christian message of redemption, with all of its consequences and benefits, was never designed to remain within the walls of any facility.  I would also contend that the fact of four walls of our facilities are actually part of the problem.  More on the implications of that later.

The sanctity of human life has been part of Christian theology, and Jewish theology, for all time.  The imago dei begins in Genesis and continues unabated.  It is from this point that the modern pro-life movement takes a call.  Life represents God's existence.  To deny God is to deny our own humanity.  Francis Schaeffer states it in these terms in A Christian Manifesto:

In contrast to the materialistic concept, Man in reality is made in the image of God and has real humanness.  This humanness has produced varying degrees of success in government, bringing forth governments that were more than only the dominance of brute force.

and

We must understand that the question of the dignity of human life is not something on the periphery of Judeo-Christian thinking, but almost in the center of it (though not the center becuase the center is the exitence of God Himself).  But the dignity of human life is unbreakably linked to the existence of the personal-infinite God.  It is becuase there is a personal-infinite God who has made men and women in His own image that they have a unique dignity of life as human beings. Human life then is filled with dignity, and the state of humanistically oriented law have no right and no authority to take human life arbitrarily in the way that it is being taken.

At this point the Christian world view sits in clear opposition to modern secular materialism.  But it is not just the materialism of Wall St. and Madison Ave. that is a problem.  (The Occupy crowd is only half right.)  Both capitalism and socialism are essentially materialistic.  While Christianity has been able to influence at least a small segment of free enterprise and capitalism, the Marxist/Socialist movement has rejected the presence of a Christian ethic and its attempts to inform their world view.  here is an example from The Nation where Patrician Williams delves into the irrationality of an undefinable humanity.  She begins:

On November 8, Mississippi is set to vote on Measure 26, a ballot initiative that would redefine the state’s Bill of Rights to extend the protections of personhood to include “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” It is striking that the measure, which is largely motivated by religious concerns about the sanctity of human existence, crops up in a state that has one of the lowest indices for overall quality of life—whenever it might begin—in the entire country: the infant mortality rate over the last decade is about 10 per 1,000 live births, with black babies dying at twice the rate of white babies. Mississippi leads the country in obesity and ranks forty-sixth in the number of state residents who have health insurance. It suffers from high death rates from cancer and heart disease. Twenty-three percent of the population lives below the poverty level, giving Mississippi the unenviable distinction of ranking dead last in the nation.

Like all who come from the Left, she is partly right.  Infant mortality is a problem.  Infant mortality is also a racial/ethnic problem in many areas.  But if we are to expect that socialism would actually solve this problem, then it is clear that she is among the most naive.  Capitalism has minimized the problem, but only when it was informed by a Christian ethic.  Even those components of the socialist/liberal agenda which present a reasonably sound ethos extend from a Christian world view[1].  She might as well have quotes the statement from Ezekial that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, when the says that "the killing of a human being, whether considered legally justified or not, is momentous, mysterious, a repercussive tragedy no matter how reprehensible the record of that life."

But unlike Judeo-Christian theology, Williams is entirely materialistic.  There is nothing of eschatological benefit -- to end, no solution. Williams does not venture into any suggestion of a solution because she can not.  Nor does she pursue a path toward a solution because for materialism there is no end.  The Hegelian-Marxist dream of a better world, even as promoted by today's young progressives, has been reduced to a fantasy and is lost in pessimism.  Enter empty materialism and the threat of apocalypse.

As I write, the seven billionth person is said to be entering this earthly dimension. That statistic has been reported with Malthusian apprehension, as well it might. The resources of the world are not infinitely replenishable; much of the planet’s ecology risks systemic collapse as a result of habitat degradation, global warming, invasive species and thoughtless exploitation; and the superpowers continue to go to war with one another over dismally non-sustainable energy sources like oil, gas and coal. Add in the uncertain-to-teetering economies just about everywhere, and it isn’t hard to fathom the dangerous contradictions of those who feel both deep resentment about the mad global competition to make ends meet, and simultaneously, a frantic “need” to propagate more of “our kind” because “we” are too few—regardless of actual numbers or common well-being. It’s as though we are walking a tightrope stretched between fetishism of the fetus and an abyss of human disposability.

Now she reads like Glenn Beck.  "The world is going to end unless ..." has become tiring.  Too many apocalyptic preachers have deadened our ears to the message of redemption.  And now we conservatives are stuck with an apocalyptic Mormon.  But the liberals/Left/progressives are equally stuck with the apocalypse of Gore and the concept of secular materialism.  "The world will end soon ... if we do not keep aborting children," is her clear mantra. 

There is no redemption in fear.  And as far as secularism goes, there is also no progress in fear.

Now for the church:  We of course need to be teaching a systematic Christian ethic in our churches.  And by "systematic" I mean the full scope of Biblical exegesis coupled with application and challenge to the world around us.  This needs to be done with youth groups so that they might be prepared to challenge secularism in the universities.  Only then can they enter the business and academic worlds fully prepared to challenge the current dominant world view.

Education, done to its fullest possible extent, requires that we exit the four walls our facility.  If Christianity is exclusively true, then so too is the redemptive message and the content of the ethic proclaimed.

Cross-posted at EvangelicalPerspective.

[1] See John Gray's Black Mass, Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia and Klaus Bockmuhl's The Challenge of Marxism, A Christian Response, for analyses of the history and content of today's Leftist ethical system.

The Washington Post says that there is no leadership in this movement.  The author of the article makes this statement:

Implicit in this structure is also a rejection of the narcissistic, “I know what’s good for you” form of leadership, now pervasive in this country, in which lawmakers fail to consider the needs and desires of the people they claim to represent. The failure of representative democracy in the United States is perhaps one of the most serious problems of our time, and the Occupy movement is a symptom of this crisis of legitimacy. The people no longer trust their leaders and are even starting to indict the system itself. They think we can do better.

The movement is acknowledged to be political.  The parallel is set against other movements, and the standard Leftist theme that "everything is political" makes its appearance.

In the 1960s and 70s, feminists convened consciousness-raising meetings aimed at politicizing the various forms of women’s oppression that were occurring in private. Women in the ranks were tired of being excluded from the inner circles of leadership where the issues and demands were being decided. And, they were sick of the generalized hypocrisy regarding gender roles. For this reason, feminist consciousness-raising eschewed formal leadership because each woman’s experience and opinion had to be valued equally. The personal was the political. (bold mine)

It seems that the occupy movement is some sort of experiment in direct democracy.  When the author says things like "We are all leaders," we can be certain that this is an "anarchist-inspired" movement.  Just as the author has stated.

So is this movement just a flash-in-the-pan event?  Sooner or later, will these disgruntled students who took massive loans for meaningless coursework, go about creating their own income?  Will they be willing to work jobs outside of their meaningless Columbia degrees?  Will they produce, or will they continue to complain?

There is an irony to their complaint.  Among their complaints is the bailouts given to Wall St.  I think that was a problem as well.  But who gave the bailouts to Wall St?  Go protest Obama, Reid, and Pleosi!  (But don't get your hopes up.)

Of course this could become (if the quantities of people increase and violence increases) a "stage 1" revolution where the people are turned on their government.  (Stage 2 is where the attacks are direct and people fight their government.  Stage 3 is where all parties lose hope and seek a new leader.  That's how Lenin manipulated Russia from the outside.)  Right now police and other public servants are being encouraged to turn on their cities.

There are some who parrot the WP article.  Bill Berkowitz parrots the WP with the claim to it being leaderless.  Be belittles the anti-Jewish flavor that has come on more than one instance.  Funny how that works.  For the Left, all conservatives/Republicans are racists and deserve the badge.  But Leftists are somehow as pure as the driven snow.

At least Berkowitz acknowledged the place of AdBusters in the movement.  And he acknowledges a few other notable problems.  But it seems that these problems are to him just little ones.  After all, the Right is always at fault.  "The right is 'exploiting anti-Semitism'."  Funny how that works.  Better than defending it, protecting it, or minimizing it, Bill.

So where are we?  Well, we have a supposedly leaderless movement which was instigated by Adbusters and some other influences.  It operates on a revolutionary/anarchist paradigm.  So far it is only able to raise sentiment but has the capacity accomplish nothing.  To fulfill that goal -- actually being productive -- seems opposite its complaint.

Beck calls this Communism.  I think that needs to be more specific.  Let's try Leninism.  It is revolutionary.  The institution of a form of government comes after a revolution.  But certainly the mindset behind this behavior can be traces to Leftist thought which comes from universities.  These people have been educated in a mindset.  The real leaders are the educators behind the scenes.

Now is the time (actually, yesterday was the time) for Christians to earn their higher degrees and enter the world of education.  Christianity will lead to stability.  Marxism only leads to anarchy, poverty, and death.  As Russell Kirk noted, only the vermin survive a revolution.  Only the redemptive message of the Gospel is suitable here as people prepare for eternity.

Cross-posted in Evangelical Perspective.

Let's look at the situation, the question, and some potential answers.  Then I'll give my take on it.

Bruce Wilson has his panties in a bunch because C. Peter Wagner has apparently called for the silencing of Talk To Action.  Now, I am no friend of the world view presented on that site.  But neither am I of the so-called "dominion" (an imprecise term, so read: Reconstructionist/post-millennial) perspective that the site regularly criticizes.

I'd be upset, too.  That's not a statement to be taken lightly.  It's not like we're all out burning their books.  Despite the site's propensity to misrepresent dispensational theology (Rachel Tabachnick and Fred Clarkson) by either ascribing violence to it or placing it within the aforementioned movement, the site is a textbook example of fallacy after fallacy.  Guilt by association.  (Like Christian activism equals a violent jihad.  Ya, right.)  I guess a lie falls into the category of a fallacy.  (It's not SCR, but ESCR that we oppose.  Keep the facts straight and your argument either gains weight or loses weight.)  There is plenty more, but this is enough for a short post.

T2A can rightly be classed as a hate site because of its inability to grasp truth and propensity to demonize, especially things like support for the historic family. Those who disagree with the homosexual agenda are branded with that oh-so-effective "hate" moniker.  Same goes with the "racist" brand -- easily thrown around.  The site has even promoted the idea that evangelicals (religious in general) deserve less political influence than other citizens.

But I don't think it should be shut down.  We have neither a dictatorship nor any other form of heavy-handed government.  It's not like the Left has promoted shutting down Fox News (or calling in "dangerous") or shutting down Rush or other conservative voices.  :-)  Or controlling radio station ownership through some "diversity" doctrine.  It's not like any Leftist radio network greeted the name of President Bush with the sound of gunfire.  Or some Leftist two-bit broadcaster ever suggested that all Republicans be jailed.

There is something much better and far more effective than censorship.  Exposure.  Exactly the opposite.  Read their material.  Give it fair and accurate criticism.  Let people know what lies and totalitarian garbage they publish.  That's enough.

Cross-posted at Evangelical Perspective.

Just some basic considerations for Sunday morning to challenge the content of your worship.

It looks as though Vanderbilt University is ready to take control of religious organizations and even Bible studies.  I wonder how long it will be until the believers there will, instead of hiring lawyers, simply practice their faith and let the Lord do something other than be a courtroom topic.  (I Cor. 6:7)  Even so, Martinez is not the end of the conversation.

So far the U.S. military has burned Bibles.  This would seem to add a level of tolerance to the activity and even make it acceptable.  Seems to be so to some.

We can ask "where's the media" and pretend that Glenn Beck actually has something to say on the subject.  Like his political discussions and unitarian civil religion methods are actually representative of orthodoxy.

Christianity is not a political religion.  (Ok, that's my premill coming out.)  Though it carries some serious political implications (as do all world views), it's first message is not political but redemptive.  But unlike those who separate faith and reality, Christianity takes the redemptive message to all corners of society.  People redeemed from the practice of sin (John 8:11) as well as the spiritual consequence of sin.  A new allegiance (Acts 16:31) is demanded.  To many, even to many conservatives, that represents treason and must be controlled.

A gospel that is imminent and militant will first change us and then, as a consequence, change society around us.  The second cannot happen until the first does.  Those are some of the practical ends of the Christian faith.

It gets confusing sometimes.  Why do protestants so often cling to the idea that the U.S. is a "Christian nation" and why do liberals fight so hard to dismiss the idea?  The again, why do liberals continue to use Christian language and ethical principles to reach their goals and yet say that "separation" is the standard?  Are both groups being inconsistent with history?  Are they being manipulative?  Or maybe there is something else -- something even more nefarious?  Or perhaps something really simple.

History teaches us.  Well, history can teach us, but we have to learn from it lest the lesson fall on deaf ears.

So what is all this about a "Christian nation" anyway?  Well, there are a lot who think that the U.S. is, because of its history, a protestant nation.  That's pretty true.  It's tough to argue anything else about the American population, except perhaps for Canada and Mexico.  But sometimes origins and ownership get mixed up.  This was, after all, just 200 years more or less after the Reformation.  We can easily forget that.  Time flies but ideas rarely take wing.

Mark Noll (The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind) notes (some of this is from his work and some are my conclusions from it and from other material) that protestants in the early days of the U.S. clung tightly to republicanism as the desired form of government.  Not the capital-R political party, but the governing principle.  To them it represented the best way to account for and deal with human freedom and moral responsibility.  That remains the case today.

But things never stay the same.  The 19th century saw a shift in protestant thinking.  The world was getting better and better and missions and government became tools for the evangelical (and other protestants).  Even rejecting Rauschenbusch's "social gospel" many protestants remained socially engaged.  At least until the fundamentalist movement took hold in the 20th century.

The leftward swing forced evangelicals to sway back to their roots -- republicanism.  But again it's not like this was a party matter on their part.  We can hear it loud and clear today -- the constructionist view of the Constitution reflects the return to first principles.  There is a rejection of the liberal whose loss of meaning (even in the simplest language) and regular calls for violent revolt are seen as socially destructive.  And they are.  Are they not?

Liberals cannot help but borrow Christian language and principles from Schleiermacher, Rauschenbusch, and Ritchl.  They inherited the a religious tradition.  Though these three had nothing at all to do with our nation's founding they did influence religious thought.  They did not get it all from Marx and Hegel.  Some, perhaps.  But not all.  What is unmistakable is how German these ideas are.  Their liberalism contributed significantly to the problems (both of them) of 20th century Germany.  Ethical standard with a Person to obey opened the door to all sorts if issues.  Reason proved inadequate, and that's a fact of history.

Protestants did not distrust the Catholics because of their skin color.  They distrusted Rome's theology and theocracy.  They distrusted what Rome did to Europe and even to some of their own families and property.  The Church of England represented the same thing to many, though perhaps in a lower form.  Protestants in the 19th century U.S. were diverse but often worked together.  From the Wesley revivals and onward the number of "born again" evangelicals in the U.S. grew rapidly and their social influence was unmistakable.  Abolition.

It was liberal Sanger who distrusted the Italian poor because of their ethnicity.

Yes, only a few of the Founding Fathers were evangelical.  And the founding documents represent a more-than-a-little influence from the French Rationalists.  It was their disciples (like Jefferson) who maintained and attempted to contain slavery.  (Liberals have tried containment twice now and it just does not work.)

Thanks to people like Edmund Burke the Rationalists were kept out of England.  (So to speak.)  The revolutions of Rousseau and Paine were kept at bay.  Their influence in the U.S. is notable, but so was Burke's conservatism.  And so was the evangelical protestant voice.  A cacophony of world views and only one could end slavery.  As happened in England, it was not the work of the Rationalists which could accomplish this task.

The rise of the evangelical voice today is no anomaly. The lull created by the mid-20th century fundamentalist was the anomaly.  A loud protestant and evangelical voice is a social conscience.  Like John the Baptist to Herod it is a call to a nation.

Cross-posted at Evangelical Perspective.

Ok, we can all rest assured that one of my conclusions is quite simple: The movie smacks of the standard Godless character of Hollywood. God has little or no place. Now that that's out of the way ...

First, the movie is positive. It promotes patriotism, but not a mindless patriotism. It promotes the defense of freedom. And it does something which is not popular in Hollywood -- it opposes the internationalist. The "bad guy" (played by the very respected Hugo Weaving) makes it quite clear that one of his goals is to eliminate national borders. That's not normal fare from the Left Coast. The Matrix promoted, in the last scene, the idea that we (for some reason) might actually want a world without borders. Those two miniscule statements reveal something important about the writing and direction of this movie that is noticeable especially when set against its opposite.

Second, the movie is positive. It promotes the idea of a willingness to serve and even sacrifice one's self for a greater good. Since so many movies preoccupied with self, it is refreshing to hear something resembling the Christian ethic step out so clearly.

Third, the movie is positive. It looks toward a better future when evil is dealt with. Winning is the goal. Containment is not acceptable. The fight was taken to the enemy with the express goal of wiping out the enemy. That is what (the tragic necessity of) war is about. Our nation became war weary when we settled for a truce in Korea and a politicized loss in Viet Nam. Your UN-supporting tax dollars at work. This movie hints at none of that nonsense.

Finally, the movie is positive. But this last one is different. Part of the story line was the construction of the perfect soldier -- one fighting for good and the other for evil. But both represent genetic engineering. Though the idea reflects the progressivism of the era (a theme which today's progressives do not like to discuss) this seeming positive shows something very frightening about genetic engineering. And the pragmatic approach that is taken can be just as dangerous. Any time we say "whatever works" and have no moral constraint we end up in situations that could not have been predicted.

Think of this movie as an old-style progressive set of ideas combined with something of American Exceptionalism. It is a unique package and, I think, might provide young people a good hint at some of the attitudes of the era.

I want a vibranium shield for Christmas.

Cross-posted at Evangelical Perspective.

Not long ago we were treated to a series of slurs regarding Nancy Pearcy and Francis Schaeffer. Among the pop-slime were the claim of "dominionism" and some form of "dominion theology" as well as a purported call for violent by Dr. Schaeffer. Joe Carter responded with a quality piece regarding the recent history of the term "dominionism" and Nancy Pearcey followed suit.

Unfortunately false information often gains a life of its own. You just cannot keep a good lie down.

Chip Berlet, with Political Research Associates, has an essay on "dominionism" on PRA site. He states that it will be updated. I trust what is there will not change (and be lost to the ether) but that another will be put up as a new version. But just in case ...

Consistent with Joe Carter's assessment, Mr. Berlet acknowledges that Sara Diamond was the source for the term.

In a September 1994 plenary speech to the Christian Coalition national convention, Rev. D. James Kennedy said that "true Christian citizenship" involves an active engagement in society to "take dominion over all things as vice-regents of God." Kennedy's remarks were reported in February 1995 by sociologist and journalist Sara Diamond, who wrote that Kennedy had "echoed the Reconstructionist line."

 Mr. Berlet has a concern, which he states quite clearly:

So let's choose our language carefully, but let's recognize that terms such as "dominionism" and "theocracy," when used cautiously and carefully, are appropriate when describing anti-democratic tendencies in the Christian Right.

He believes that there is an anti-democratic tendency. Hmmm. And he finds this where? He looks to the use of he mandates in Genesis.

This highly politicized concept of dominionism is based on the Bible's text in Genesis 1:26:

• "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (King James Version).

• "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'" (New International Version).

So far, so ... at least we understand the issue. But there is something missing here, and it absent the precision necessary for a precise definition. This passage actually has two mandates regarding dominion. The first is a creation mandate and the second is the (and this is the issue of concern) thing that the Reconstructionists (and other postmillennialists) call the "cultural mandate." The two are quite distinct, which he noted but apparently wished to ignore in order to make a different point.

Here's the first problem: Anyone who holds to a more moderated creation mandate may, by employing Mr. Berlet's method, be classed as a domionist because their position depends upon the same passage even though the interpretation and application differ greatly. This is the sort of slip-shod logic which creates problems like we have today.

Mr. Berlet seems to enjoy a hasty generalization as well. For instance, the popular Christian consensus of the early population of the United States is historically undeniable. This influenced may of the laws of the nation as well as local religious involvement in government. One should not think that prayers in school arose out of nowhere, or that prayers at government meetings were introduced by religious radicals. It was the religious character of the nation. America was originally "Christian" in its shared ethic. An all those "blue" laws where stores were not allowed to be open on Sunday, as well as the illegality of homosexuality. And much more. The predominance of the Christian ethic cannot be ignored in American history.

But this can be written off with ease because so many secularists want to believe that the Rationalism of Jefferson permeated society. Somehow the religious neutrality type of secularism has become a religion-free secularism and the U.S. is not to be considered a Christian nation. So Mr. Berlet can now make this accusation:

Open advocates of dominionism declare that "America is a Christian Nation," and that therefore Christians have a God-given mandate to re-assert Christian control over political, social, and cultural institutions. Yet many dominionists stop short of staking out a position that could be called theocratic. This is the "soft" version of dominionism.

 Ok. So the Wesley revivals and the religiously-influenced laws and cultural character of the US never happened. And if they did, then you are a dominionist. It's easy; too easy.

Ok. At several points he says that there are moderate evangelicals who work within the democratic system. But what he fails to do is to identify a way to draw a distinction. His definitions are so fluid that, even my own Ryrie-esque dispensationalism, classic Calvinism, coupled with a pretty good grasp of history and philosophy and a desire to engage and even make changes in the political landscape, would meet his definition. Never mind that positions such as mine are functionally compatible with a constitutional republic -- if I seek to influence laws with an ethic which is not sourced in rationalism then I would easily fit the (soft) dominionist category.

It seems that the only evangelicals whom Mr. Berlet will tolerate are those who will go along with the secular agenda.

Mr. Berlet defends the secular agenda against the position of Tim LaHaye:

According to LaHaye, adultery, pornography, and homosexuality "are rampant" and this is evidence of the warning by Schaeffer's "that humanism always leads to chaos.

 Mr. Berlet appears to view this as a reactionary position. I would posit that history says otherwise. What Schaeffer called "humanism" I will re-draw as the Rationalist movement. This movement created the U.S. and early-on it created the French Revolution and Napoleon. It brought us Hegel and Marx, and with them Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. The results were mixed, to say the least. The U.S. did not follow the problems of Europe, according to Russell Kirk, because of the influence of Burke who kept the movement from destroying England.

But after Hegel the movement changed. We got Marx and the call for revolution. Some revolution was violent but much was not. The theme has become "subvert the dominant paradigm" and criticism of religion became the first attack point of the movement. These are necessary steps for the implementation of a secular state.

I watched on C-Span the anniversary of the Berlin wall raising, along with honor given to those who died attempting to escape East Berlin. One of the speakers was quite clear that human rights are not self-evident. That nation suffered through a series of dictatorial issues which proved, to them, that both natural right and rationalism had failed. This is the chaos of which Schaeffer spoke. It is the chaos of which most Americans are only remotely aware. Burke saved us from becoming Europe.

Likewise Whitaker Chambers warned that a secular state not informed by theology will proceed down the same path, though perhaps taking a different turn here and there. The problem with the Rationalist movementis that it refused to be constrained by religious (Christian) ideals. So if we went back and started over with the same system we will still end up with a totalitarian solution. It may be a different type of totalitarianism, but totalitarianism it will remain.

The 20th. century tried "scientific atheism" and it failed miserably. Should we continue down the path of becoming a nation driven by "science" then we will continue to recreate the same problems again and again. We do not experiment on the infirm, but we do experiment on those who will are not able to respond. We do not gas a population after declaring them less than human but we do define humanity arbitrarily and allow the killing of those outside that definition. We do not commit genocide ourselves, but we do blame that little nation for many of our international woes and today are giving military support to their enemies.

Mr. Berlet is partly right. There are certain theological issues. But a lack of precision amounts to error and confusion. It misleads the reader. Whether you agree or disagree, "don't embarrass yourself by not doing some homework."

Cross-posted at Evangelical Perspective.

The case has been made by many that evangelical Christianity and American (including British) conservative political theory are compatible. That is, they are functionally compatible and are capable of working together as partners. This is opposed to any sort of ontological compatibility. In that case one could say that to be "Christian" is to be "conservative" and that is not at all the case.

The compatibility also has its negative characteristic. Christianity is clearly at odds with liberal theology. Christian theology does not see humanity as basically good, but fallen and in need of redemption. Much has been written about that and we will not pursue the issue at this time.

The question that I raise now is the degree of compatibility between evangelical theology and conservative principles. Conservatism today differs little from conservatism in its early days though it has taken on some new characteristics.

One of the founders of 20th c. conservatism, Russell Kirk (The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot) provides some insights for us as to the reasons for the changes we see today.

Kirk notes that James Burke, whom he sees as the proper founder of modern conservatism, the core of conservatism is the practice of "prejudice and prescription." (p. 1)  In this case prejudice is not racial as we would use the term to day.  Rather it is that simple willingness to draw distinctions between bad, good, better and best.  This says something about the fallenness of humanity -- progress is not possible.  Though we can do better, and often do, it is not from an innate goodness as the liberal might say, or out of program as the progressive might say.  Rather it is the result of proper choices made by way of our prejudices.

But these prejudices do not stand alone.  Prejudice without prescription is a commonplace issue.  The prescription of the conservative, in Burke's case, was natural law.  Burke rejected the alternative of natural right for its arbitrariness.

For these several reasons, Burke rejects with contempt the arbitrary and abstract "natural right" of the metaphysicians, whether of Locke's school or Roussseau's. Yet natural principle society must have, if men are to be saved from their passions. What other basis exists for realizing the natural moral order in society? "Reason," Voltaire might have answered; "Utility," Bentham was to say; "material satisfaction of the masses," the Marxists would reply six decades later. Burke looked upon reason as a feeble prop, quite insufficient for most men; utility was for him a test only of means, not of ends; and material satisfaction an aspiration grossly low. Another foundation for social principle is Burke's. "Obey the divine design" -- so one may paraphrase his concept of obedience to a natural order. By a proper regard for prescription and prejudice, we discover the means of dutiful obedience. The collective wisdom of the species, the filtered experience of mankind, can save us from the anarchy of "the rights of man" and the presumption of "reason." (p. 57)

Here Burke, and Kirk, separate conservatism from several varieties of liberalism.  Though one might be tempted to accept an Hegelian model as equally "conservative" on account of its heavy use of prescription, his model is also rejected on account of its lack of foundation.  Like the natural rights system it is arbitrary and focused on power and determinism (p. 40, "an arbitrary, unreasoning urge").

It is the prescription which we do well to note, and for Burke that was Natural Law.  As we read in the quote from Kirk above, it is a matter of "divine design" for dealing with the human condition.  Kirk follows Burke maintains the eschatology of humanity with Christianity and not with the liberal.

This opens the door for new ethical arguments,new prescriptions, to enter the conservative world.  Since the time of Burke (and Kirk) we have come up against  a more refined eugenics argument.  It is no longer a matter of reducing the minority population, as taught by Sanger and practiced by Planned Parenthood.  We now add to conservatism the prescription of a Christian ethic regarding the whole schema of reproductive technologies.  Some accomplish this through natural law theory and others through a "reformed" approach to the question.  There are likely other methods.  In either case, though, the conservative model has become a suitable mechanism for carrying Christian ethics and influence into the public arena.

The framework of conservatism thus has the capacity to serve Christianity.  Conservatism is malleable, and that is a good thing.  But this is also where some caution is required.  A philosophical system may serve the advancement of the Gospel, but in itself is not the advancement of the Gospel.

Natural remains, at least as a remnant, in conservative theory.  In the late 20th c. Wm. F. Buckley, Jr., brought a strong Roman Catholic influence to the conservative movement.  And with Roman theology comes natural law.  Still, the "party elite" that would serve the conservative movement, today the Republicans, have become mere pragmatists.  There is no conservative party though there is certainly a liberal party; in fact there are several which differ mostly by degree.  But given the elections of the past 30 years, beginning with Ronald Reagan in 1980 and going through today's "tea party" movement.  Given the control of the liberal party it is a wonder that conservatism has made any real difference, let alone won any significant elections.  But with its theological foundation it will continue to win.

Cross-posted at Evangelical Perspective.

The recent political hack hit piece at The New Yorker regarding the world view of Michelle Bachmann made an assertion which deserves an appropriate response. The first point to be addressed is the assertion that Francis Schaeffer was promoting violent revolution. The author, Ryan Lizza, says this:

In 1981, three years before he died, Schaeffer published “A Christian Manifesto,” a guide for Christian activism, in which he argues for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe v. Wade isn’t reversed. In his movie, Schaeffer warned that America’s descent into tyranny would not look like Hitler’s or Stalin’s; it would probably be guided stealthily, by “a manipulative, authoritarian élite.”

The content of this assertion is plain enough to be past debate. So the question is a simple one: Was Schaeffer promoting a violent overthrow of government or was there something else which he had in mind? There are several options available. He might have been promoting militant protests. He might also have been promoting non-violent protests. But these are speculations. The answer to the issue is to be found in the cited work, A Christian Manifesto. Much can be said for Joe Carter's substantive response to Lizza's assertion:

Anyone who has read the book knows that it says nothing of the sort. Throughout A Christian Manifesto Schaeffer advocates the use of “force”: “Force, as used in this book, means compulsion or constraint exerted upon a person (or persons) or on an entity such as the state.” [emphasis in original]

But couldn’t this mean “violence?” Schaeffer says no. In the only time that the word “violence” is used in the book, he condemns its use:

Two principles, however must always be observed. First, there must be a legitimate basis and a legitimate exercise of force. Second, any overreaction crosses the line from force to violence. And unmitigated violence can never be justified.

Throughout the book Schaeffer makes it clear that the way to oppose abortion is through non-violent civil disobedience. His strategy includes a human life amendment, overturning Roe v Wade in the Supreme Court, and legal and political actions against abortion providers. If all else fails, he says, the State must be made to feel the presence of the Christian community by using a fearsome tactic: “doing such things as sit-ins in legislatures and courts, including the Supreme Court.”

That should suffice for the specific point. Mr. Carter also deals with some additional nonsense of Lizza's, and not the same things as I do below. For instance, the term "dominionism" has its feet planted firmly in Leftist political theory and not in anything of historical substance.

As noted in the first paragraph, Lizza has a serious problem with sound reasoning. One point which is plain is his willingness to employ guilt by association. It's that old "you know someone who knows someone who is that way, so you are tainted" argument. If you have any friends who, say, vote Republican, then perhaps we shouldn't have anything to do with you. Or perhaps you have a friend who has a friend who knows a racist, then you are just too close to the problem. If that sounds silly and even juvenile; it is exactly what Lizza does. He says:

At Oral Roberts, Bachmann worked for a professor named John Eidsmoe, who got her interested in the burgeoning homeschool movement.

Eidsmoe explained to me how the Coburn School of Law, in the years that Bachmann was there, wove Christianity into the legal curriculum.

Eidsmoe has stirred controversy. In 2005, he spoke at the national convention of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a defiantly pro-white, and anti-black, organization. (Eidsmoe says that he deeply despises racism, but that he will speak “to anyone.”) In Alabama last year, he addressed an event commemorating Secession Day and told an interviewer that it was the state’s “constitutional right to secede,” and that “Jefferson Davis and John C. Calhoun understood the Constitution better than did Abraham Lincoln and Daniel Webster.” In April, 2010, he was disinvited from a Tea Party rally in Wausau, Wisconsin, because of these statements and appearances.

Bachmann has not, however, distanced herself, and she has long described her work for Eidsmoe as an important part of her résumé.

The inference one might reasonably draw, given the lack of actual evidence that Bachmann is a racist, is that Bachmann (and even Christianity) is either soft on racism or might actually be one herself. What the author does not do is provide actual evidence. And this in itself is enough to declare this piece nothing more than hackery.

One additional piece that is worthy of note is the quote from Chris Rodda and the reference to him as an "historian." Rodda is the Senior Director of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. Rodda is also an author. But as far as some academic rigor, I cannot find any. (Though not everyone publishes their CV.) Rodda is a student of history, and that is admirable. But whether or not he is one who can set aside politics in favor of historical honesty is questionable. Rodda publishes on HuffPo and other political hit sites which lack academic credibility. (Rodda goes as far as to question the basic intelligence of those who disagree with the progressive/Leftist agenda with statements like "Don't worry, your parents can't spell words like that either.") "Historian" seems to be a reach. It would be fair to call Rodda a student of history and then wait (and wait ...) for some quality, peer-reviewed material to surface. And this takes us back to the main point: What Lizza writes is as questionable as those whom he quotes. (Carter noted other citation issues and reading his post is worth your time.)

And to be candid, I recently lost a writing gig because of some not-well-considered material and that situation forced me to change my tone. Perhaps Mr. Lizza may also find a path to publishing better material. Or maybe The New Yorker just needs a better editorial board to serve its website.