A common theme at this past weekend’s CPAC was the near inevitability of a Republican take-over of Congress in the November elections. There were several credible reasons given for this prediction. Central to all of the arguments was the recognition that over the past year, an unafraid and unabashed conservatism has begun to take hold in the Republican Party, a conservatism that “works every time it’s tried.”
The first argument, simply put, says that the American people want the government off their backs. As Newt Gingrich argued, there is a growing realization that centralized planning leads to dictatorship. The relationship between government power and individual liberty can properly be described as a zero-sum game, such that an increase in government power necessarily entails a decrease in individual liberty. On this point, John Ashcroft made an interesting distinction. He described proper security measures as only those measures that enhance individual liberty and allow an individual to exercise a maximum level of liberty. Properly understood, a government does not grant rights, it only acts as a guarantor of rights. What is unique about this concern regarding the size of government is that it has the ability to unite the various disparate factions within the conservative movement. Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, the Ron Paul people, etc. all agree that the government needs to be smaller. If the Republican Party can provide small-government candidates (as it is in the process of doing), it can take advantage of this coalition.
Another common theme was concern over the massive levels of spending and the level of intrusion into the private sector by the federal government. Glenn Beck described this concern as part of his argument having the right to fail. The main thrust of his argument on this point was that individuals and businesses have a right to and ought to be allowed to fail. Failure creates an opportunity to learn from one’s mistakes, such that after “hitting bottom” you can pick yourself up and go forward a stronger and smarter person/business. The massive spending and intervention undertaken by the federal government to prop up failed businesses and people only undermines the soundness of the American economy, it also robs people of their right to fail and prevents them from learning from their mistakes. Good examples of this are the zombies that are GM and Chrysler. The bailout mentality of the federal government and its increasingly expensive and wasteful welfare programs is only serving to bankrupt and impoverish future generations of Americans while at the same time robbing them of the ability to improve their situation. A flurry of federal dollars has clogged the economic engine of the United States. The people understand that Washington needs new leadership to slash spending and bring the budget back into balance.
The final major theme of the conference was what several speakers referred to as American Exceptionalism, or the idea that in the face of a world history dominated by tyrants, monarchs, and dictators, the American idea of individual liberty and self-determination stands out as an exception to the historical norm. We are now faced with a situation where those liberties are under assault. We are also faced with the very real possibility that the standard of living and general welfare of the rising generation of Americans will be worse than the generation that preceded it. With every bill that comes out of Congress, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate continues its assault on the liberty and prosperity of the American people. However, recent elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, as well as the emergence of the Tea Party Movement have demonstrated the people’s will to remain the exception to the rule and their will to fight the Democrats’ agenda.
The major themes at CPAC, concern over the size and scope of government coupled with a renewed desire to fight the Democrat agenda of poverty and misery, are also those themes that are best resounding with the American people. With its renewed strength in bearing the mantle of conservatism and renewed courage in fighting the Democrats’ agenda, the Republican Party has demonstrated that it is willing to listen to and heed these concerns. If they stay on the path they are on, the Republicans are poised to win big in the upcoming mid-term elections.
This past weekend was the annual pow-wow of conservatives from across the nation, CPAC. Thursday opened with a bang, as Marco Rubio, Jim DeMint, Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney, Scott Brown, Mitt Romney, and John Boehner all made an appearance, followed by Tim Palwenty, Bill Bennett, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and other conservative luminaries Friday and Saturday.
Overall, a great experience. With liberalism beating a hasty retreat, these leaders are ready to lead the conservative movement to victory at the polls this November.
But all is not well in the fight over the soul of the conservative movement. The straw poll results and keynote speaker brought this conflict to light.
First, we have to understand that the passion of Ron Paul supporters remains undiminished since 2008. So, yes, he won 31% of the straw poll, but that’s mostly because the Campaign for Liberty was out in force and every single one of them (probably) completed a ballot. His supporters like to point to these trivial victories to say Paul is gaining momentum, but at the convention, one could tell most conservatives’ hearts are not with him.
The selection of Glenn Beck as the keynote speaker to end CPAC was, for me, a huge mistake. I understand that people like Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck have their place: they can excite crowds and energize the base, but they cannot, and should not, be the standard-bearers of the cause. People like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck represent a virulent strain of anti-intellectualism in the conservative movement, which is anathema not only to the heart of conservatism, but also, really, to its continued existence.
Personal experiences are important in shaping one’s political beliefs, yet a political philosophy needs a far stronger foundation. Historically, we have benefited from the men and women who have pondered and wrestled with perennial political problems and molded conservatism as we know it today. Palin and Beck would break with that tradition and be content with sloganeering with little thought to the underpinnings of their ideas.
True, Beck is splashed across the news as the modern manifestation of conservatism, but we need to look to the rising intellectual powerhouses that have continued the tradition started by Burke and carried through the centuries with Kirk, Buckley, and other greats. We can look to the likes of Robert P. George or more thoughtful commentators like Jonah Goldberg. But to make Glenn Beck the leader of the conservative movement would sound the death knell of conservatism in America.
In the cultural and theological tug of war to define Jesus, many on the theological left have moved to emphasize Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry. They emphasize Jesus’s moral teachings, his healing and his temporal good works. Some go so far as to present Jesus as a social revolutionary and partisan in class warfare between the rich and the poor. By following Christ’s earthly example, they argue, the betterment of mankind can be accomplished.
I do not mean to de-emphasize Christ’s humanity in this post, after all a core tenet of Christian doctrine is the Hypostatic Union in which Christ is fully human and fully divine. But by emphasizing Christ’s earthly ministry, we de-emphasize His divinity.
Christ was fully human, and he carried out a temporal ministry which we are called to emulate. But Christ was and most importantly is divine. Christ is a friend, but he is also King.
In a way, this serves to better emphasize the love of Christ, after all, what earthly king is also a friend to humble and poor? But I believe the concept of Christ the King has several implications which make it somewhat uncomfortable for those on the theological left.
Firstly, the concept of Christ as king emphasizes the sovereignty of God. By emphasizing Christ’s role as king, as ruler, as lord, we emphasize God’s final and ultimate authority in all things. God in his infinite knowledge knows more than any man ever can know, and this idea is unsettling to many people. Rather than working to end suffering on this earth, the doctrine of the sovereignty of God tells us that we cannot know why there is suffering and that suffering will exist to the end of time. And the permanence of suffering emphasizes more than anything else that mankind cannot be saved and redeemed through temporal earthly ministry and social justice.
Secondly, the concept of Christ the King emphasizes the existence of absolute morality. After all, if Christ is the ultimate sovereign ruler, then it logically follows that the pronouncements of such a ruler serve as an absolute moral code. “Love” as defined by the theological left is often relative to the circumstances. It is centered around not appearing judgmental, intolerant or absolutist. Yet, as Christ was about to ascend into heaven his last words to his disciples were not “be open-minded and tolerant”, the were to “go and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”
Thirdly, the concept of Christ the King emphasizes the existence of absolute truth and reason. God’s existence, and therefore his sovereignty, are unchanging and immutable. This is a attribute that many on the theological left find distasteful. Shane Claiborne, for example, writes The Irresistible Revolution that “religious doctrines just aren’t very compelling, even if they’re true.”Post-modernists and Emergents argue that God is encountered emotionally rather than intellectually. As a result, Biblical morality becomes subjective and relativistic. Theology becomes based on feelings rather than objective truth.
Keeping this view of Christ the King in mind also gives the Christian a proper sense of reverence for the divine. God is infinitely greater than man, and being reminded of this serves to remind mankind of his true place in the order of things. With the immensity and power of God in mind, earth’s problems seem small by comparison. One’s own life is of small concern. Christians in Cuba executed by Che Guevara (a man idolized by some proponents of the social gospel such as Shane Claiborne as an example of a fighter for social justice) did not go to their deaths at the killing walls of La Cabana Prison shouting “Christ the Fighter for Social Justice!” or “Christ the Defender of the Poor!” Rather, they died shouting “Viva Cristo del Rey!”
I am not trying to minimize Christ’s temporal ministry, but to put it in its proper perspective. Christians do not just follow the earthly Christ of Thomas Jefferson’s The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. We follow the divine Christ, Christ the Redeemer, Christ the King. Christ is worthy not only of our emulation but of our reverence. Emphasizing Christ’s temporal ministry at the expense of his divinity is to miss half of the point. We follow Christ’s earthly ministry, but we also follow the Risen Christ. Christ is not just our friend, He is our God.
When there is a problem one can either address the cause or vie to nurse the symptoms. Sex educators at UNC have chosen the latter. If there are too many teen pregnancies or too many STD-infected students, the solution is not to hand out free condoms as they suggest.
First of all, among the many false premises of the sex education sycophants, sexual health is not a communal matter. One’s health is a private, personal matter. In dealing with health issues that students have control over (i.e. getting pregnant or transmitting an STD), personal responsibility is where one’s health education should begin and end.
Secondly, the idea that students are ignorant about sex education is just absurd because they are not. However, even if they were, that is no excuse for state-sponsored sex education in college. People who want to know things know them, especially people who are older than the age of 18. Students aren’t as stupid as people at Campus Health Services (CHS) want everyone to think.
Thirdly, Campus Health and the University continually take an irresponsible stance when it comes to pre-marital sex: they condone it.
Sex education advocates never tire of making fun of people who believe in teaching abstinence in schools. They claim that it is silly and backward to take such a dogmatic stance on the issue of teenage/pre-marital sex. In fact, the name calling involved is merely a way to marginalize people who disagree with their view that sex before marriage is a good and healthy thing. Not only does CHS think sex before marriage is a good thing, it goes so far as to give tips on how “To increase sensitivity and pleasure of the receiving partner during oral sex” and other like advice.
As a showcase for what it wrong with UNC’s take on sex education, check out CHS’s webpage on abstenence. In a tone most people reserve for morons, the all-knowing sex educators explain: “Depending on your personal definition of abstinence and reasons for abstaining, any type of sexual activity may be unacceptable. The decision to abstain is one that you can make at any point in your life, even if you have been sexually active before.”
Wowzers, I had no idea!
The webpage goes on to explain some of the disadvantages of abstinence. Included among the bulleted, adverse effects of not having sex (and I quote): “This method may be frustrating.”
And that’s where we are, I guess. If it’s frustrating for goodness sakes avoid it! Never mind that one’s body has the potential for being the temple of the living God — woop! Sorry, it seems I accidently posited a truth claim.
Thankfully, sex educators are not biased at all, unlike me.
This was probably my favorite Superbowl ad. It was very revealing as to the overall trend of the green movement. What was also interesting was how close the scenes depicted in the ad are to real life.
Consider the first scene where the man is arrested for requesting plastic bags at the supermarket. This past spring the General Assembly considered a bill that would have banned the use of bags statewide, while imposing a rather hefty fine on those who persisted in using them.
And then there’s the shot where they arrest the man for throwing away batteries. Incidentally, a law in California prohibits the disposal of common batteries. And for those of you who thought composting was optional, think again. Then there’s the shot where the man is arrested for using the wrong light bulbs and the ban on the disposal of plastic bottles, already mentioned on this blog. The ad also highlights the preferential treatment given to “green” cars and mentions the growing popularity of Styrofoam bans.
On first glance, the ad comes across as funny and harmless. It is an ad after all. However, a closer examination, given the facts mentioned above reveals a more disturbing trend in the green movement, an increasing tendency to regulate and codify a certain life style. That this fact is now beginning to be reflected in commercial advertising further underlines the point.
What is perhaps most interesting is the closing scene of the commercial, where the Green Police proceed to arrest the two local policemen. Over the past few years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has grown into an extremely powerful regulatory and enforcement agency. With its recent attempts to impose a cap-and-trade scheme on the country over the objections of Congress, the EPA has reached a new peak that allows it to run over state, local, and (apparently) federal governments. This new understanding is reflected in the ad, where the Green Police (read EPA) arrest the two local cops for using Styrofoam cups.
In short, the green movement has reached a dangerous level of absurbidity, with the events in the commercial closely mirroring those in real life.
So I have just finished reading Shane Claiborne’s book The Irresistible Revolution. It’s been popular for a while, especially in certain circles at UNC.
The book and author are the latest iteration of the stream of Christian theology which was known as the Progressive Gospel in the early 20th Century, Liberation Theology in the 1970s and 80s and the Social Gospel in the early 21st Century.
What these theological movements have in common is an emphasis on the church’s role in doing good works on the earth in the present as opposed to proclaiming the world to come. As Claiborne himself writes, “We can tell the world there is life after death, but the world really seems to be wondering if there is life before death.” In his view, the church’s goal is not so much to convert people to faith in Christ as much as it is to convert them to a better way of living. He argues that “conversion is not an event but a process, a process of slowly tearing ourselves from the clutches of the culture.” By practicing social justice, we are, in Claiborne’s words, “practicing resurrection.” The salvation of man’s soul through the redemptive sacrifice of Christ takes a secondary place to the salvation of man’s earthly body from poverty through following the earthly example of Christ. In short, we are to “believe so much in another world that [we] cannot help but begin enacting it now.”
Whatever else you can say about Claiborne, he does attempt to live out his philosophy. He lives in a communal house in a poor neighborhood in Philadelphia, where he ministers to the poor, homeless and drug-addicted. He lives a life of poverty and chastity, and his ministry (called The Simple Way) is run based on donations.
Part of the problem is, Claiborne’s proposals to enact heaven on earth are simplistic, naïve and juvenile. He advocates not only for the abolition of the death penalty but of the prison system as well. He dispenses with the nuclear family, saying that God has achieved “final triumph over patriarchy” and that fathers are no longer necessary because “only God is worthy to be seen as Father.”
He does not stop there. He calls for the abolition of money, because it encourages materialism and the unequal distribution of wealth. In its stead, he proposes replacing it with a system of bartering. He does not seem to recognize that bartering is simply a less complicated version of the materialism of monetary exchange. The underlying problem, as Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 6:10, is the love of money, not money itself. Replacing money with another form of wealth exchange will not change this.
But it’s not just money that Claiborne is after, it’s the entire system of market economics. In Claiborne’s ideal world, the free market will be replaced by sharing or bartering, and there will be what he calls “mystical multiplication” of resources. He remains hazy about what this means, which is easy to do when one’s economic model is reliant upon miracles to function.
Claiborne uses the event of Jesus feeding the 5,000 as an illustration of his economic model. He does not ever address the fact that this event was a miracle, and as such it was a singularity rather than an economic pattern. What’s more, the purpose of the miracle was surely not to provide an economic model, otherwise Jesus would have repeated it many times instead of only performing it twice. Rather, Jesus later explained (John 10:38) that the purpose of these miracles was so that “that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Jesus performed miracles to show that he was God, not to provide examples for us to live by. It is not our job to take on the role of Christ and perform miracles.
But the biggest problems with Claiborne’s philosophy are not his proposals for social change but his theology.
Claiborne persist in perpetuating the idea that Jesus came as a social revolutionary. He goes so far as to write that “Jesus was crucified not for helping the poor but for joining them.” In portraying Jesus as an agent of class conflict, Claiborne conflates the Biblical idea of the poor with the Marxist concept of the proletariat. As Josef Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote in his 1984 pamphlet, “Instruction on Certain Aspects of ‘Theology of Liberation’“:
…The “theologies of liberation”, which reserve credit for restoring to a place of honor the great texts of the prophets and of the Gospel in defense of the poor, go on to a disastrous confusion between the poor of the Scripture and the proletariat of Marx. In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle. For them the Church of the poor signifies the Church of the class which has become aware of the requirements of the revolutionary struggle as a step toward liberation and which celebrates this liberation in its liturgy.
Claiborne also goes off the rails in his definition of faith and conversion. For Claiborne, “conversion is not an event but a process, a process of slowly tearing ourselves from the clutches of the culture” after which we begin “practicing resurrection” by enacting true biblical social justice.
This has no basis in scripture at all. Biblically, when a person comes to faith, they acknowledge Christ as their savior, and are, in Jesus’ words, “born again.” However, in Claiborne’s theology being converted means to tear yourself away from the dominant culture and begin enacting the process of cultural change Claiborne wants to see in the world. Rather than works becoming an expression of our faith, it appears that works become our faith. Claiborne’s view of a converted Christian is closer to Che Guevara and Leon Trotsky’s idea of the “New Man” than a Biblical view of salvation.
Likewise, his definition of faith has problems. “Faith is loyalty,” he writes. In fact, it isn’t. A precise definition is hard, but faith is trust would be the best I can come up with. You can be loyal to someone without trusting them. Claiborne argues that the early Christians were executed for their lack of faith in the state. This is only true if you define faith as loyalty. In fact, they were executed because their refusal to sacrifice to the cult of the emperor undermined the Roman civic religion. Roman civic religion was not about belief, it was about unifying the people around a common symbol. As Dr. Richard Talbert has taught me, Christianity introduced the idea of faith and belief. It was a concept which was foreign to Roman civic religion. After all, it was the Roman gods which Seneca was referring to when he wrote that “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”
But Claiborne’s biggest problem, and one that eclipses all the others, is his view of the role of good works in the world. Claiborne wants to see Jesus as a social revolutionary, a savior of men on earth rather than just of men’s eternal souls. By wanting people who “believe so much in another world that [we] cannot help but begin enacting it now,” he wants to bring heaven to earth. In the words of Josef Ratzinger, he wants a “temporal messianism” in which Christ’s church works not only to save people’s souls but to save their physical, material lives as well.
The problem is, this is a fallen, broken world full of imperfect people who cannot redeem themselves by their own efforts. Claiborne wants to bring to earth what is reserved only for heaven. Yet, no matter what people do, this broken world will remain broken. As Paul wrote (Romans 8:18-25):
I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
Creation is in a fallen state, and it will one day be liberated. We can do nothing about this. However, our present sufferings “are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed” in the future when all creation is set right after Christ’s Second Coming.
When Jesus was in Bethany two days before his crucifixion, a woman came to the house he was staying in and poured a jar of expensive perfume over his head. His disciples decried the waste, saying that the perfume could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus replied by saying “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.” Here, Jesus indicated that his spiritual ministry – his death and resurrection – was more important than his temporal ministry to the poor.
The primary role of the church is to reach the lost with the message of the gospel. This is a spiritual ministry, not a temporal one. Temporal ministries may be carried out by the church, but it is not the primary mission of the church. We are called by Jesus to be the “salt of the earth.” Salt is a preservative. It slows decay. It does not stop decay, only decreases it. It certainly has no restorative power. Likewise, we have no power to restore the earth, just to slow its decay.
Claiborne’s teachings are not only wrong, they are extremely dangerous. When people put their faith into an ideology which promises to save the world, they inevitably get their faith shattered when their ideology fails to deliver.
For many decades, communism was such an ideology. Utopia, it was believed, was right around the corner. Yet, in 1991 the system met its final collapse. It was shown once and for all to be practically and morally bankrupt. As a result, the masses lost any remaining faith in communism. The faith survives in a few scattered pockets left behind by modern society, but it is for all intents and purposes dead.
Likewise, suppose a large number of Christians someday put their faith in Claiborne’s ideology. Like all ideologies which promise to bring heaven to earth, it will someday catastrophically fail. Will this mean a mass exodus of Christians who leave the faith? This already happened in the 1940s, when the global horror of World War 2 showed that the Progressive Gospel rang hollow. As a result, Christianity declined, somewhat in the United States but especially so in Europe.
Temporal ministries to the physical needs of people are not wrong. But they are not redemptive. We can feed a hungry person, but we cannot end hunger. We can find a homeless man a home, but we cannot end homelessness. We can heal a sick person but we cannot end sickness. We can end a war, but we cannot end warfare. We can save a person’s life, but we cannot stop them from dying. Only Christ can do that, and it is not our job to attempt to take his place.
To celebrate women’s week, the Carolina Women’s Center is involved in a project entitled Take Back the F-Word. It is a project in which students are to “Imagine a world where no one is confined by rigid gender expectations . . . a world built on ideals of inclusivity and social justice.”
The f-word project is an attempt to redefine what feminism means: “No matter what you imagine—there’s a feminism for that!”
This week the Women’s Center is sponsoring an exhibit in the union full of offensive artworks. The artwork is meant to illustrate the need for consent before sex (I think). There are unnecessary nude/half-naked pictures of women and men meant to get their point across.
There are also T-shirts hanging along the wall. The shirts each have sentences scribbled on the front. Phrases such as “Rape hurts people” etc. are among the messages scrawled.
But, does this display make sense within the context of the f-word project? What if one’s feminism is so “inclusive” as to include rape? What if one’s standard is one’s pleasure? The f-word people seem to be hypocritical on this point.
To say that men should not rape women is to “confine” them into “rigid gender expectations.” It is, according to the feminist’s standard, not feminist.
Fornication is a sin against both God and the body. To say that it is not merely because one feels “constrained” is to open the door to moral relativism. Continuing along the same line of reasoning, rape is a sin as well not only because it is a sin against the body and against God, but because the rapist is violating an individual’s property (his body) and his inherent worth.
Unfortunately, feminists don’t see it that way. UNC feminists lack the moral authority to promote healthy relationships because they are relativists.
I think it is the people-person (way down?) in me that sympathizes with the modern liberal’s obsession with “diversity.” I enjoy meeting different types of people from different backgrounds because it’s fun. Usually our differences aren’t so contrary that I cannot make a new friend. Also, the portraitist in me even enjoys the privilege of looking at a diverse population of interesting people.
We as a society collectively approve this harmless, generic diversity. Pluralism is something of a prized possession of modern America. It certainly isn’t an inherently bad thing.
Unfortunatly, the term diversity has been hijaked for political gain by “liberals.” In the hands of said liberals, diversity has become an ideal.
To take a term that means nothing more than “variety” and to somehow start emphasizing it as a necessary virtue makes no sense. The reason it makes no sense is because diversity neither satisfies nor breaches a moral standard. It isn’t the same as lying or stealing etc. Thou shalt not steal is a clear standard. Besides being intuitively immoral, stealing is contrary to a commandment given by God. On the other hand, diversity is as amoral as a chair or a computer. Yet, when a member of the cult of diversity has something to say, the sense of moral imperative is palpable. How can that be?
In my opinion it is because diversity is nothing more than a sideshow.
For most people that I know diversity usually refers to the inclusion of minority parties for the sake of variety. Specifically, it refers to either skin color, sexuality, or sex or a combination of the three. But, in truth, diversity has nothing to do with empowering minorities. The term diversity is the buzzword that serves to cloak a hidden agenda. That agenda can be best summarized in the phrase “social justice.”
The funny thing is that advocates for diversity aren’t really that diverse at all. It’s kind of sad, actually. They are very, very predictable — at least when it comes to ideas. This is so merely because they have all bought into a specific lie; the lie that the individual is only as important as the community grants. In fact, an individual’s worth comes by way of their birth. It is not contingent upon the ratio of black people to white people. Nor is it contingent upon their sexuality or gender. They are human, and that is enough.
Whether a provost is whiter than average or not should not be a concern of learned professors. The fact that it is frankly embarrasses me.
