Wednesday, March 18
Thursday, March 5
Monday, March 2
Why CS Lewis Called A Garbage Apologist
An atheist perspective.
Interesting how he condemns C.S. Lewis as stupid for insinuating others are stupid.
This atheist still doesn’t provide much reason for adhering to any criteria if everything is all blind chance.
Tuesday, February 17
An Analysis Of “Blinded By Might: Can The Religious Right Save America”, Part 3
In the chapter titled “Seduced By Power”, Cal Thomas reflects in depth upon his response to a question asked of him following a worship service by a woman concerned about pro-life activists threatening to withdraw from the Republic Party over weakening opposition to abortion. To the inquiry Thomas responded, “You can't apply the principles of a kingdom not of this world to a kingdom of this world. The purists want to apply the principles of a kingdom that knows no compromise to a kingdom that is all about compromise (49).” One of the foremost motivations since the earliest days of human history has been power (defined as control, authority, or influence over others) and the desire to obtain it. The problem that arises for any religiously motivated individual or organization that gets involved with politics is that eventually the decision will need to be made what will be of ultimate importance: the values initially prompting such civic activism or the influence achieved as a result of diligently advocating one's message. In most instances, it is institutional perpetuation that wins out.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, Thomas details how this temptation to retain favor with those in power has compromised ministers across the political and theological spectrums. For example, in terms of prominent Democrats, Thomas points out how Jesse Jackson over the course of his career went from advocating a strong pro-life position to one accepting abortion in order to cultivate the favor of Democratic leaders as well as the party's key constituencies. Even a Christian luminary as celebrated for his integrity as Bill Graham was not immune to this tendency of human nature. Thomas references a “Today Show” interview in which Graham was asked about then-President Bill Cliton's marital infidelities. Surprisingly, the evangelist famed for such impeccable standards that it is claimed Graham would not enter a room without it being inspected to determine if there was a woman in it other than his wife in order to avoid compromising his testimony essentially, though upholding the principle that a leader should strive to live above reproach, dismissed concerns regarding the allegations. Instead, Graham seemed to brush the allegations aside, dismissively replying, “...we're living in a whole different world today” with overwhelming pressure on someone women were so apparently drawn to unlike anything the world had ever seen (52).
Such an urge to compromise is also fraught with numerous policy implications as well. As an example, Thomas references the case of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (58-59). Not a month into his presidency, Ronald Reagan nominated the relatively unknown jurist. The Chief Executive called Falwell directly soliciting the minister for support essentially sight unseen despite early concerns regarding O'Connor's views pertaining to abortion. Even though Reagan assured that the Religious Right would not be let down by O'Connor's jurisprudence and judicial philosophy, the highest praise Falwell could articulate regarding Justice O'Connor was that “she broke the (all-male) tradition in a dignified way (59).” But as Thomas astutely observed, “What is the difference between a male pro-choice judge and a female pro-choice judge (59).”
With compromise so easy and some might contend necessary in order to remain politically viable, the centrality of one's values over time slips in terms of their preeminence. According to Thomas, this tendency is probably most evident in regards to fund raising. Whereas it could be fairly said that the mainstream media of the late twentieth century trended towards the left of the establishmentarian center, the conservative movement of which the Religious Right was a significant component excelled at direct mail solicitation appeals.
Thomas' criticism of direct mail fund raising are valid in asking just what percentage of the funds raised went to the addressed cause and would a donation make an actual difference. Often one might accomplish more by donating to a local charity rather than a national organization. Corollarily, many of the funds directed towards national campaigns and organizations actually instead go to cover overhead. For example, for years it seemed that a classified ad ran in the conservative newsweekly Human Events seeking potential direct mail copywriters promising six figure salaries for qualified experienced applicants.
Yet additional criticisms are invoked by Thomas that he himself fails to live up to. Of direct mail fundraising letters Thomas writes, “If you were to do a content analysis of the fund-raising letters of the Religious Right, you would discover that they are basically the same, regardless of the organization (54).” Thomas observes of the epistles soliciting funds, “First they identify an enemy ... liberals in general. Second, the enemies are accused of being out 'to get us' or destroy the country (54).” Thomas proceeds to lament how he wishes that these letters could be positive for a change and to renounce their demonization of liberal icons such as Norman Lear and Ted Kennedy.
It can be a challenge to discern how Thomas' own editorial output in terms of published columns and broadcast commentaries are appreciably different. For as in the case of conservative or Republican operatives more directly involved in politics than Thomas chastized by the renowned pundit, Thomas cannot overcome the tendency to cast verbal aspersions in the direction of those with whom the renowned pundit happens to disagree. Nor can he resist the temptation to craft his rhetoric in such a way as to placate the influential with whom Thomas desires to curry favor.
Interestingly, Thomas has not totally renounced his career in advocacy journalism in favor of missions outreach and monastic withdrawal from public life. At times, it could be argued that the partisan positions he takes are lacking in rigor of consistency. For example, in a commentary titled “Electing a President or a Pastor?”, Thomas reflected upon the reluctance of politically active Evangelicals to support Mitt Romney over that candidate's professed Mormonism in light of former Texas Governor Rick Perry suggesting that he was their only viable alternative since he shared the faith of these concerned voters. It was Thomas' contention that such should not be a campaign issue because Christian voters were electing a president and not a pastor. As such, it was policy rather than doctrine that mattered in such a context. Yet such was not a courtesy Thomas seemed willing to extend to Romney's fellow Mormon Glenn Beck. Thomas was notably eager to overlook Romney's shortcomings in terms of professed ultimate religious commitments for the sake of the broader conservative movement and even the nation in terms of elected office. Yet the columnist was quite explicit in his remarks how this aspect of Glenn Beck's own worldview imperiled the spiritual well being of American Christians unable to discern between the gold and the dross presented by Beck spanning a variety of media formats.
Thomas mused in remarks published 4/11/11, “Beck is not only a Mormon, he frequently drifts into universalism.” But if Romney's most basic beliefs differ little from Beck's in terms of both public figures holding membership in the exact same religious body and that these do not matter since he is a politician and not a pastor, why should not the same distinction apply to Beck who in terms of national persona serves in the role of a commentator not that different than Thomas? Thomas concluded the remarks regarding Beck by observing, “They come and they go in this business...and eventually flame out ... Put not your trust in princes and kings. That goes for show hosts, too.” Such a remark prompts one to stop and ponder is what really concerns Thomas actually his own loss of market share?
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, February 12
Thursday, January 8
Tuesday, January 6
Liberal Inconsistencies Remain A Perennial Holiday Nuisance
Over the past several years, the website and email newsletter Unsettling Advent has utilized these contemporary communication technologies as platforms through which progressives, who usually attempt to distance themselves from the rigors of Scripture as much as possible, at least during the holiday season attempt to wrap their policy idiosyncrasies in the veneer of the Christmas narrative in order to virtue signal how, for 25 days of the calendar year, they are holier than those not harping these trendy causes 24/7.
Upon stumbling upon this particular blog invoking the spirit of the Advent season, the reader hopes to discover some keen insight regarding the profundity of God coming to Earth in a humble human form so that any who might believe on Him regarding this mystery might somehow escape eternal damnation. But in the case of this particular holiday let down, all that the discerning are left with is the usual that religious conservatives are rotten scoundrels. In other words, a recitation of the exact same message that the leftwing media serves up day after day throughout the remainder of the year.
Interestingly, a number of criticisms aimed by these liberal religionists at their politically traditional counterparts just as easily (if not even more so) actually characterize this series of devotionals claiming to point to an enhanced spiritual awareness or, some might even say, New Age perspective.
Yet upon closer scrutiny, these exhortations end up advocating the sorts of deprivations of liberty and infringement of basic rights that these kinds of media outlets claim to stand against. For example, the first of the 2024 series opens with a focus on Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.
As a counter protest to those demanding that the tyrant leave office following an electoral defeat, Maduro decreed that the Christmas season would start early that year on October 1. He no doubt hoped a little manipulative bread and circuses in the form of celebratory pageants and government handout payments would distract the masses from a smoldering political crisis in a part of the world were such disagreements often end in marauding execution squads and death camps.
In reflection upon the invocation of Christmas trappings to adorn an ongoing dictatorship, the author of the devotional laments with the allusion that King Herod would himself today likely employ such a Yuletide strategy as evidenced by that usurper's own innovation of false religion to buttress his own claims to power as evidenced by additions to the Temple, religious ornamentation, and by surrounding himself with theological functionaries. Religious leaders in the Latin American regime condemned the acceleration of the holiday season as an attempt to co-opt the sacred in pursuit of political ends.
The Unsettling Advent devotional concluded, “Today, Herod would hold up a Bible and claim people could say 'Merry Christmas' again because of him. Anything for power, When that happens, we should follow the Magi in going home another way.”
That remark is also no doubt a veiled barb aimed at Donald Trump. For throughout his campaigns to win religious voters disturbed to an extent over the ground lost to secularists in the culture war, he promised that under his administration no American would need to feel ashamed or afraid to articulate a simpler verbalization that has come to define on what side an individual stands regarding these battles the outcome of which will determine the very nature of American society.
It needs to be pointed out that Maduro is certainly not a creature of the Right. Maduro's political party is the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. That party is hardly a font of Trumpism or even a conservatism more reflective of the Buckleyite variety characterizing National Review in its prime.
Wikipedia describes the ideology of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela as being “left-wing to far left.” From Article 3: Values and Principles of the Party's own statutes quoted in the entry, “the United Socialist Party of Venezuela views itself as a socialist party with a socialist society the only alternative to capitalism.” Providing inspiration as to what constitutes that vain is listed scientific socialism, Christianity, Liberation theology, and humanist universalism in order to “build a political model respectful of life and mother Earth that guarantees human survival.” The statement of Values and Principles goes on to elaborate, “As a multiethnic and diverse party, it [the United Socialist Party of Venezuela] nurtures its roots of Afro-Indianism ... aimed at creating the new man and woman in a melting pot of hopes make our ... mestizo socialism loaded with Africanity (and) elements of indigenous peoples...”
Certainly not the sorts of sentiments known to elicit thunderous applause at MAGA rallies. If anything, those are the points of political philosophy and ideological rhetoric invoked by the fellow travelers of the Unsettling Advent devotionals in the pages (both electronic and print) of publications such as Sojourners, the Christian Century and Words & Way in the never-ending tirades against the amorphous interlinked bogymen of “Christian Nationalism” and “White Supremacy” often invoked but somehow never satisfactorily defined.
All of this raises a number of very fascinating questions or at least provocative observations. Those droning on incessantly about these threats of Christian Nationalism and White supremacy insist that these concepts prove to be such because of the danger these allegedly pose to our BELOVED DEMOCRACY.
So do the authors of the Unsettling Advent devotionals realize the irony that they are calling for the end of the kinds of policies in Latin America that they are actively agitating to see implemented here in the United States? Thus, can it be explained why that, if leftwing policies are electorally refuted in the Third World, that is evidence of a nascent democracy that the United States support must be channeled towards? But when free people in America through an election put the breaks on the lunge into a prolonged Progressivism, these same activists rend their garments in apoplexy that such an outcome portends the horrors of authoritarianism.
Day 2 of Unsettling Advent 2024 opened with the vignette of Luke 4:5-8 depicting Christ's tempting by Satan where the Old Deluder promised to give Jesus the kingdoms of this world if the Messiah would agree to worship the Devil.
Of the encounter, Andrew Whitehead of the Center For The Study Of Religion and American Culture writes, “Satan...came to him and tempted him. Jesus was tempted to bypass the struggle he was bound to engage in. Instead of doing so, he turned down the opportunity to gain the authority and splendor of the kingdoms of this world.”
The lesson we are to draw from this, according to Professor Whitehead, is that we as Christians must (as did Jesus) lay aside and not cling to self-interested earthly power. Of this, Whitehead writes, “...a religion that was born of a people acquainted with persecution ... has become the cornerstone of a civilization and of a nation whose very position in modern life too often has been secured by a ruthless use of power applied to defenseless people.” The sociologist goes on the observe, “Power and supremacy over others to enact our vision against the wishes and input of our neighbors is not the way of Jesus.”
It is of interest how those of the progressivist camp of Biblical interpretation have at times ranked foremost among those insisting that Satan is not to be understood an an actual malevolent aware intelligence but rather as a literary metaphor (something that those of this perspective actually have in common with a number of Satanic sects). However, it seems in this instance that this account detailing Satan's temptation of Christ is to be taken as an historic event when convenient to do so in the attempt to build a political theology not necessarily binding upon the conscience for the text cited.
In saying as quoted in the Unsettling Advent devotional, “My kingdom is not of this world ... But now my kingdom is for another place,” at no time did Jesus relinquish His authority to ultimately determine absolute truth and standards. In urging believers to surrender power, this particular Unsettling Advent devotional is disturbingly nebulous as to what exactly the devout Christian is being asked to surrender. And perhaps even more importantly, just what exactly is the worldview of those to whom this power is to be relinquished?
Whitehead writes, “Power and supremacy over others to enact our vision against the wishes and input of our neighbors is not the way of Jesus.” Earlier in the devotional he writes, “While power can be used and applied towards a common good (think about the civil rights movement ... ), many Christians are intent on gaining and defending access to power that only serves 'us', the in-group of 'right' Christians.”
Yet Professor Whitehead is hardly a dispassionate scholar concerned about definitions and where these fit together in describing observational phenomena. The book he hawks at the end of the devotional is titled “American Idolatry: How Christian Nationalism Betrays the Gospel & Threatens The Church”.
Dr. Whitehead most likely endeavored to support the thesis of his text with what he believes to be facts. However, the title is certainly on the nose as to what side he happens to be on in regards to the considerable ideological chasm now dividing Christendom.
An elected official no doubt esteemed by many espousing the anti-Christian nationalist policy preferences of the religious left, Barack Obama is credited with the observational truism that campaign victories have political consequences. While in a constitutional republic those losing elections are accorded a modicum of protected rights and a baseline of dignity, the outcome of an election dictates in what direction the ship of state is to be sailed for a given term.
Like it or not, the outcome of the 2024 election revealed that for the moment the majority of Americans are either some kind of conservative willing to put up with President Trump or at least no longer willing to put up with the radical shenanigans into which elitist liberalism has careened such as drag queen story hour, proto-pornographic library books for children, and racial malcontents looting retailers as the defacto response to trial verdicts failing to advance an ethno-redistributionist agenda.
So if democracy is to be understood as a synonym for the will of the majority, aren't Professor Whitehead and his patrons at the Unsettling Advent initiative now required to reverse ideological course or at least celebrate in theory the traditionalist conception of American patriotism that these intellectual effetes have outrightly denigrated for nearly a decade if not longer? Just as importantly, if one of the dangers that Professor Whitehead and his associates insist that eternal vigilance must be exercised in reference to is “Power and supremacy over others to enact our vision against the wishes ... of our neighbors” because such “is not the way of Jesus” do those part of the Unsettling Advent campaign that advocated mandatory compliance with the COVID immunization mandate and sanctions imposed upon those questioning this pharmacological vision bordering on the dystopian that echoed rhetoric disturbingly similar to that articulated in the past century in the most devilish of regimes intend to repent of their own efforts to undermine the most basic of liberties?
Despite the faults of the Unsettling Advent devotional series, the effort is to be commended for realizing that the cosmic themes of good and evil inherent to the Christmas narrative were not resolved in their entirety at the time of Christ's first advent. Rather such struggles will continue until finding their ultimate resolution in the events surrounding His second coming. Sadly, as scholars and thinkers for the large part denying or downplaying these texts detailing these events yet to transpire, The Unsettling Advent authors cannot resist the temptation to apply these most elevated truths to the mundane politics of any present moment.
By Frederick Meekins