Paul's Passing Thoughts

“This post isn’t so much about her, it is about the fact that she exemplifies a very important distinction in the realm of philosophical politics; that of the individualist versus the collectivist….That’s what we need to know about New Calvinists beyond the fact that they hold to a false gospel. They are collectivists.”        

Tyranny always introduces itself with a kind understanding hand. Tyrants always feel your pain until the day that they inflict it. As a matter of necessity they also pose themselves as people who care about right and wrong. No, the only “right” is their collectivist doctrine. You can say sin is the cause for every drop of blood spilled on the earth, but past that, the question of the individual versus “the group” is the arena where that blood is spilled.

Until God Himself comes to rule the earth, two basic philosophies prevail about what is the best way to order society until that happens: confidence in the ability of the individual and a government that creates an environment where that can flourish, or confidence in an elite few who must rule over the incompetent, unenlightened masses. The elite few have always been those who claim access to a faraway enlightenment that is too difficult for the unenlightened masses to access. Plato, the undisputed psyche of Western culture, believed that only an elite few were willing to invest in the study necessary to obtain that enlightenment, and their ability to do so was predetermined within their particular pedigree. Plato, being a mentoree of the Hindus, believed that man’s soul reflected the ideal society, and each person was born a producer, a soldier, or a philosopher (spiritual or secular caste).

Moses and the apostle John disagreed on faraway enlightenment that needed to be mined by the spiritual or philosophical elite. Moses told the Israelites that no one needed to go up to heaven and bring the word down. He said it was very near to them and they were able to understand it. John said we have no need for anyone to teach us. John in particular was refuting the Gnosticism that was wreaking havoc on the early church, the same Gnosticism that has its origins in Plato.

Individualism is the arch enemy of collectivism. In collectivism, it is never about right or wrong, it is about being obedient to what’s best for “the group.” And don’t miss this: there is only one thing that is bad for the group; INDIVIDUALISM. This is the crux of the little tiff I had with blogger Joy Wickholm Bennett this week. I assume her and hubby Scott Bennett are still members of a…. or the…. New Calvinist church I last heard about. Her edgy public writing is no problem there because she is like many New Calvinists: they are allowed to play in their sandbox of ideas as long as they don’t do anything that unsettles the herd. And not keeping me on a short leash in regard to what “the group” did to me could jeopardize the freedom granted her at this time. We see this as a constant pattern in the testimonies we receive at TANC. It goes like this:

We were in marriage counseling and my spouse was being fingered for being the problem in our marriage. Then I started asking questions about doctrine. At the very next counseling session, I was all of a sudden the problem and not my spouse.

And let me throw my very own testimony on that heap. But the point here is the very valuable lesson I learned in regard to the fray. New Calvinists can play in their antinomian sandboxes as specified by their New Calvinist masters. They can be anything they want to pretend to be, just so it doesn’t reveal where any bodies are buried. While Bennett sells herself as a freethinking hipster, she is ultimately enslaved to the group and their tyranny. She is the personification of the SGM mentality.

Nevertheless, like so many of her liberal types, she accuses individualists of being “mandatory” in their thinking. The subject was homosexuality. This post isn’t so much about her, it is about the fact that she exemplifies a very important distinction in the realm of philosophical politics; that of the individualist versus the collectivist.

As a Biblicist, I am on a journey right now. How should separatism be defined? In the real world. As a Christian, if I have a boss that is gay, it is mandatory that you respect that boss. That’s the Bible. And by the way, homosexuals can be very good bosses. I doubt many care whether you are a Christian or not, there primary concern, if they are smart and many are, is how you make them look to their superiors. So, venue considerations are huge here. Moreover, I strongly contend that the Bible would teach a winning over by job performance alone in that venue.

Let me be clear here: I have friends and relatives who are homosexuals. Let me also be clear on this as well, they know where I stand on the issue. In these relationships, I think venue and mutual respect is the key here. Neither position is in the closet, nor is either thrown in the face of the other. They know that if they want a debate or counsel on the issue, they can readily find it with me. My duty is twofold: that my position is known, and that I then live out the substance of that position.

But there is also another angle here, collectivist versus individualist. In some collectivist societies not tempered by the American Constitution, homosexuals are executed. As Christians, are we up with that? Look, please, be a Biblicist like me, just don’t be an idiot about it. In regard to the upstart Potter’s House, would we allow homosexuals to be members? No, but on the other hand, The Potter’s House is a movement away from Protestant tradition, so we are still working through what true biblical membership really is to begin with. There are many, many unnecessary debates in the church because of Protestant tradition.

Would we allow a homosexual to attend our fellowship to hear our ideas while respecting our venue? Well, I look forward to hashing these things out as we grow, but right now, I would say, “yes.” But stop right now and put this in neon lights:

In collectivist societies, depending on the stripe, and there are many, what is deemed best for the group, is DICTATED by the few via civil law. And that may very well be homosexuality. In other words, the day may come when it would be against the law for the formal church to exclude, or include, homosexuality. And keep in mind, let me repeat that, “keep in mind,” an individualistic homosexual would be against mandatory inclusion.

The question is, how much tradition throws churches into this fray unnecessarily? And second, should Christians be more involved with social morality or the political philosophy that will dictate it to begin with? How we approach a problem is often smarter than a narrow focus on not compromising beliefs. Here is the danger, and please put this in neon lights as well:

“Moral” friends are often collectivists. And if they are put in power, that is something that has NEVER turned out well in all of human history.

Now, this brings me to the dangers of fleeing to those who share our same opinions. And worst yet, wanting them to have power. Are they collectivists, or are they individualists? One will allow you to have your own beliefs under reasonable constructs while being concerned for your wellbeing; the other will not tolerate a differing opinion because they believe it is a threat to society as a whole. Enforcing orthodoxy by the sword is a matter concerning the survival of mankind in their minds.

That’s what we need to know about New Calvinists beyond the fact that they hold to a false gospel. They are collectivists. And there is nothing “new” about it, Calvin was a collectivist extraordinaire. And that’s Joy Wickholm Bennett. She is the epitome of a collectivist. She lost the argument, so instead of being persuaded by the argument, she censored me. Siding with the collectivists that committed a criminal act against me was merely par. I was on a short leash for that reason to begin with. Her reaction was the result of two factors: one, she lost the argument; two, her sandbox was being threatened. Hence, we have a definition of collectivism:

Collectivism will not lose an argument or learn from it because it possesses an elitist knowledge that will save the world from itself.

And let’s look at her argument. In regard to homosexuals, deterministic. Go figure. Homosexuals are born with the desires that they have and have no control over those desires. Nobody chooses their desires, they are born with them. During our little tiff, she asked me when I chose to lust after women. My argument was that no Christian is enslaved to any desire save those that please God. I specifically argued that her determinist view was ironically making the homosexual the judge over a pedophile. Both have a desire, but she was judging  deterministic desires  as having different moral values. One should change, the other can’t?

Don’t misconstrue my point: at issue is the ability to change if one so desires. At issue is the rejection of determinism. At issue is choice.

Game over. Bennett, like all collectivists, will not lose an argument. And if she has the authority, she will have you burned at the stake just like her Great Uncle Calvin. Liberals don’t worry me, collectivist liberals worry me. Bennett is a collectivist liberal Calvinist. I like conservatives better, but a collectivist conservative is no less a danger. And don’t miss the way her collectivist determinism transcends liberalism and conservatism.

Hope lies in individualistic Biblicism. It also sees any kind of individualism as offering more hope than any of Plato’s relatives. That is a legacy punctuated with fire and death. It is a philosophy that always comes selling itself as freedom that results in bondage. Like Bennett, it whispers to many that it was predetermined that they are that way, and in their elite wisdom happy hopelessness can be found.

paul

Some of the following are screen shots of what Bennett deleted.  Other aforementioned arguments were deleted before I could screenshot them.

No Joy, as you know, they held me hostage to membership at CCC after I left biblically by letter under threat of ruining my reputation for months. That’s not a feud, it’s a criminal act. And that is ok with you because you are a tyrant just like they are.