Is The Social Gospel Biblical Enough For Conservative Christians?

Is the Social Gospel biblical enough for Conservative Christians, especially American Conservative Christians? We should note that not all Conservative Christians are politically conservative and socially reserved like American Conservative Christians. So the question is whether the Social Gospel is Biblical enough for these Christians to adopt?

Of course, the next question is what is the Social Gospel? Here, we must acknowledge that the Social Gospel is not a monolith. It doesn't have just one definition. The Social Gospel can mean many things to many people. So I am going to define Social Gospel by what it means to a Christian Fundamentalist like myself. Note that not all, or even most, Fundamentalists, will agree with my definition.

Before defining what the Social Gospel is, we must ask how are the Gospel and Social Gospel related? There are two fatal errors that can be made when answering this question. The first one is to reduce the Gospel to the Social Gospel. This is the sin practiced by theological liberalism and they do this because they reduce all of reality to the physical realm and nature. To do so would be to deny both the nature and redemptive work of Jesus Christ who, being God's Son, died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead. It is also a denial of salvation by faith alone.

The second fatal flaw here would be to sever the Social Gospel from Gospel of Christ. Why? It is because the Social Gospel is an integral part of following what Jesus has either directly commanded or what can be implied from His commands. To amputate the Social Gospel from our faith is to encourage a kind of sanctification that revolves around how to be righteously selfish. That is the less we live for the benefit of others, the more our Christian life becomes an exercise in pleasing ourselves as long as we do not violate the accepted Christian taboos. Such leads to a kind of consumer Christianity and is thus a violent assault on the Gospel's call to all to repent. For we must ask whether the Gospel merely calls us to stop breaking certain religious conventions of our day or does its call to repentance penetrate that surface to challenge hearts full of selfish ambition.

We can think of the Social Gospel as the call to give temporal help to those whose need is caused by systematic neglect or oppression. Here, the Social Gospel consists of three parts. These parts are Social Justice, Social Action, and Personal Action. Social Justice would consist of calling the public, especially those with wealth and power, to cease their oppression and neglect of those who are suffering and are in great need. One of the rubs that exists here for many American Conservative Christians is how to obey Romans 13's injunctions to respect and submit to the governing authorities, or superiors as the Westminster Standards labeled them, while supporting those whom the authorities make suffer. We should note that those considered to be authorities include all from the public sector in addition to some from the private sector. Authorities from the private sector would include business owners and management.

The Social Gospel also includes actions that are designed to provide immediate relief from suffering. Sometimes this help comes from groups and sometimes from individuals. When groups provide such aid, it can be called Social Action. The many groups that went to the aid of the victims of Hurricane Sandy were involved with Social Action. Groups that provide food, housing, cleaning services, healthcare, and other care for society's neglected and oppressed people participate in Social Action. Here we should note that the demographics of those involved with Social Action cut across the conservative-liberal-leftist divides. The only controversy that can occur is in the identity of the recipients of the help. Liberals and Leftists will tend to help those who are more marginalized by the law. An example of such a group that will receive more help from Liberals and Leftists are "illegal" immigrants.

When help for those who suffer neglect or oppression come from individuals, rather than groups, we can call this Personal Action.This is the third part of Social Justice. People who have never heard of the Social Gospel or think that they oppose it have been practicing the Social Gospel whenever they help someone who is disadvantaged. This applies to people who tutor students or coach athletics from poor neighborhoods or to shut ins or the sick. This also applies to businessmen who donate goods to the poor or who give opportunities to the same people move up the company ladder.

So where's the beef with the Social Gospel? The contention lies with the first part: Social Justice. There are two bases for disagreement American Conservative Christians have when opposing the Social Justice part of the Social Gospel. The first grounds for objection is personal by church members and the second is theological by denomination and church leaders.

The personal reasons church members might have to oppose Social Justice can include tribalism, an unquestioning submission to authority, and an already comfortable life. In addition, some church members will have a grasp of the theological reasons taught by their leaders to maintain the same old, same old where the Church benefits from the status quo. Nothing illustrates that more than when ordinary church members who object to criticizing and trying to change the system as trying too hard because we have to wait until God brings His Kingdom to earth. 

We can see tribalism in church members as they ignore the abuses of the their government in the name of patriotism. To even criticize America here is akin to siding with the enemy and thus being a traitor. The problem that such church members have is that the more their patriotism inhibits their examination and criticism of their country's moral failures, the more moral concerns become endangered. And the more such church members hold fast to unconditional submission to authority, the more these church members resemble the compliant citizens who have lived under the most tyranical regimes such as Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, and Red China. Unless we admit that these regimes provide the minimal standard of evil, then we must realize that the wrongdoing of any country must be opposed and opposed first by the people of that country.

Finally, we must address the Christian theologians who teach their followers to be passive in the light of the sins of those with wealth and power. The Social Gospel has been "delegitimized" by these theologians through theological models such as the New Legalism and theologies about the Kingdom of God. The models of thought that attempt to persuade people that they can prefer a life of comfort to bearing one's cross run the risk of following the example set by the pharisees as recorded in Matthew 15:1-20. What Jesus challenged the phariees on was their setting aside God's commandment to honor one's parents by taking money that could be used to support them by declaring those funds to be a religious donation.

We must ask these theologians this: which is more important, God's command to love our neighbor as ourselves or their definition of God's Kingdom or legalism? We must ask them this: which is more important, to preach the Gospel to all regardless of the status and wealth of the audience or to follow their theological models? We must ask these theologians this: which is more important, to be a faithful steward for God by trying to make the world a more just place or to pay more attention to these traditions that claim to interpret the Bible?

See, the Social Gospel doesn't have to based on sophisticated models of Biblical interpretation but on simple Biblical values of caring for others and wanting to spread the Gospel. And though one can legitimately argue that one does not care for someone by teaching false doctrine, neither can one love one's neighbor by ignoring their suffering that is a result of systematic oppression and neglect.

And so the question becomes for those who wish to relegate the Social Justice to be mere humanism and thus discarded, which reflects the love of God as seen in the sending of His Son to save those who were His enemies; is it seeking a life of personal peace and prosperity (a.k.a. seeking to live a quiet and peaceful life as long as one does not break current Christian taboos) or is it promoting Social Justice by challenging those with wealth and power to quit living as the rich man did in Luke 16: 19-31 as well as to treat all others as equals who have been made in the image of God?

The more people rely on the religious traditions of today to discredit Social Justice, the more they become pharisees who rejects God's Word that commands them to love, preach, and be good stewards so they can revel in their their sophisticated, theological constructs.

Why Christians Should Attend May Day Celebrations

First, what is May Day? The answer to this question proves American Exceptionalism. That is because to the rest of the world, May Day is Labor Day. It isn't in America. There is another related proof of American Exceptionalism. Most of the world sees the connection between labor and wealth. But in the land of the financial services, what is connected with wealth is the combination of gambling and remote ownership.

May Day is about human rights. May Day in NYC, for example, will be about the rights of workers and immigrants. It is about standing up for and protecting those who are being exploited by our current economic system. The American worker has taken a beating during the past couple of decades. Pay has either stagnated or gone down when adjusted for inflation and fewer workers from certain sectors have jobs. Many other jobs have been outsourced to underpaid foreign workers or machines. And this is all done in the name of maximizing profits. In the meantime, immigrant workers are often herded, abused, and then exploited. Not only are they threatened, so are their families back home if these workers do not cooperate with their handlers.

So why should Christians participate in an event that is both a protest against abuse and a celebration of how these victims contribute to our lives? The question should answer itself but it doesn't. It doesn't because something has gone awry with American Conservative Christianity. That something can be found in the question of whether this religion is more conservative American than Christian.

To its believers, there is hardly a difference. American conservatives are all about the individual and morals. And since these Christians believe that their country was founded on the Bible and their faith, they believe that as American conservatism goes, so goes their Christianity.

What does their Christianity consist of? It consists of everything for the individual. One's personal faith brings one's own salvation. Once one is saved, one attempts to live on a fantasy island, an island where one believes that one can be protected from the world, with other likeminded Christians. Thus, those living on this island can ignore the collapsing world around them because their future is set. And the only way to really help people is to prepare them for what happens after the world collapses, that is get them to become citizens of their island. After all, nothing else matters but eternity.

But some such Christians still want to help others with the things of this world. They become a testimony to American Conservative Christianity. These Christians believed that individuals could help but that nobody should be compelled to. And this last point shows the influence of American conservatism on Christianity.

This emphasis on the individual has a strong effect on whom Christians will associate with. The first group they will associate with are fellow island dwellers, fellow Christians, for what they have in common is what is most important: eternity. The second group these Christians will hang with are those who share American conservative societal values. These people, some of whom are not Christians, are the real Americans while the rest of us are deemed as American wannabes. These people are ones with conservative political and social values. Finally, American Conservative Christians love to be with real patriots. A real patriot is one who regards America as the best country God has placed on this earth. So what the American Conservative Christian has in common with the patriot is this love of country, or could we call it tribalism, that needs to taken back before it is destroyed by strangers.

In addition to the above, American Conservative Christians have an aversion to challenging the law or speaking out in public. Such is looked down upon as a lack of faith in God and respect for the authorities God has placed over us.

So with all of these natural obstacles, why should Conservative Christians attend May Day? Perhaps the Bible says it best when Jesus says that even "the heathen love their own" in Matthew 22:36-40? See, May Day provides a Biblical opportunity to the American Conservative Christian of following Jesus's commands to love others.  Instead of supporting those one is comfortable with,  here is a chance to be with those who are different. On May Day, Christians can stand with those who are exploited or discarded by their employers and with immigrants who merely want to live like the rest of us. And since many of those attending these May Day celebrations throughout the country are in groups outside the American Conservative Christian's normal circle of friends, here is the chance for Conservative Christians throughout the land to do what Jesus commands.

The question becomes will American Conservative Christians seek to be with and care for those who are different? Will such Christians show the courage, the Bible looks on cowardice rather negatively, to stand with some of the victims of our economy and society? The excuses not to go will be as plentiful as they are convenient. Excuses like: there are other ways to care for workers such as prayer or one is too busy on May 1. But the real reason why many such Christians will not attend May Day celebrations is an all controlling fear. They are afraid to leave the safety and comfort of their fantasy islands. They are afraid to be with those who are too different and they are afraid to speak out against wealth and power. They will be afraid to be different. They will feel robbed of a chance to enjoy the spoils. And the irony here is that people who present themselves as the readers, lovers, and defenders of God's Word will not give a real Biblical reason why they refuse to attend May Day celebrations or hold their own holidays where they celebrate and defend those who are not their own.

Below are links to some of the May Day celebrations throughout the U.S.

May Day in Boston

May Day in NYC

May Day in Philly

May Day in Baltimore

May Day in Washington, D.C.

May Day in Atlanta

May Day in Pittsburgh

May Day in Chicago

May Day in LA

Is Anti Same-Sex Marriage Rhetoric A Barrier To Peace?

The following is the result of having discussed same-sex marriage on a couple of conservative blogs. Not all conservatives overstated their case against same-sex marriage; but some did. What follows is for them.

Until the latest terrorist attack, same-sex marriage had become a focus of attention again. This time, it was because the Supreme Court just heard arguments in support of its legalization. Those who were opposed paraded a host of analogies they say could really happen if same-sex marriages are allowed. All of these comparisons live down the same slippery slope from one another and their purpose is to infuse fear for what the future could hold. However, each of the comparisons made seem to unveil more about the mindset and priorities of same--sex marriage's opponents than to inform us of the effects of legalizing these marriages.

We are told that if same-sex marriages are legalized, then comparable events, like the legalization of bestiality, the legalization of adult-child marriages and other relations, and the legalization of polygamy could happen. Of course, all of these predictions are voiced in the interrogative. It goes like this, if we legalize same-sex marriage, what will stop us from legalizing _____________? The implication being that our current laws against same-sex marriage is the last line of defense before we are totally occupied by unrestrained sin. The logic employed here  is that same-sex marriages represent one of the most base human relations people can have.

However, there are both logical and Biblical reasons why we should at least question the thinking mentioned above. First, let's take a look at the logic of the analogies. On the one hand, by asking if we will legalize bestiality, adult-child partnerships and similar kinds of relationships, and polygamy once we legalize same-sex marriages, many are implying that either same-sex marriage is more similar to these practices than heterosexual marriage or equal to it.

In either case, those who make these comparisons cannot get past, and are thus fixated on, the sexual dynamics of same-sex relations. The fact that the domination, abuse, violence or the threat of violence that exists in some these other relations take a back seat to gay sexual dynamics is an indicator of that fixation. In addition, that they see same-sex marriage as being more comparable to bestiality than heterosexual marriages is another such indicator. If someone was trying too hard to impress people, we might be tempted to say that person is overcompensating for something. And overcompensation is what we see here in the comparisons. It is as if just saying what the Bible says about homosexuality is not enough. So some are eager to go well beyond.

What do the Scriptures say? Certainly the Bible does not have a favorable view toward homosexuality. In fact, it speaks against it in the most serious way. According to Paul, homosexuality, along some very common household sins, can disqualify one from the Kingdom of God (I Cor 6:9-10). But does that justify the range of talk from hyperbolic rhetoric to hate speech against same-sex marriage?

Paul also wrote about homosexuality in Romans 1 when he spoke of those who decided to worship the creature rather than the creator. He went on to say that God gave them up to an unclean heart. But as much as he spoke against homosexuality, Paul tells us that Romans 2:1 is a coming. And just as he listed a host of other sins that comes from worshipping the creature rather than the creator and merits God's judgment, Paul tells us that Romans 2:1 is a coming. What does Romans 2:1 say? It says that all who judge others condemn themselves because they too practice the same sin. See, Romans 2:1 makes Paul's statements on homosexuality and other sins personal about ourselves rather than informational about others. Romans 2:1 demands that, after reading Romans 1, we stare in a mirror to see our own sins rather than judging the failures of others from a far. And this is another problem those who use inflated rhetoric against same-sex marriages have.

Yes, homosexuality is wrong, says Paul; but he writes this in a section of Romans where he calls everybody a sinner. So we cannot preach Romans 1 to homosexuals without first reading how it condemns us. Thus, those who are honestly referencing Paul to condemn homosexuals cannot distance themselves by overstating their case. Any attempt to do so is an exercise in self-righteousness. For the message of Romans 2:1 is that we cannot use what Paul wrote in Romans 1 to judge anybody without first condemning ourselves. This is because we are all sinners and we all deserve condemnation. We cannot distance ourselves from homosexuals or other sinners because we are all in the same boat.

So what does how we speak against same-sex marriages have to do with peace? How obvious the answer is depends on which end of the whip we live. For if we are among or benefit from the persecutors who have power, we will be clueless. But if we are among the persecuted, it cannot get anymore obvious. When we see how mere sinners like homosexuals can be talked about, we realize how much worse it is for those who pose a real threat. We see that already in our action movies. The enemy is always depicted as this irrational monster who must be destroyed at all costs if we are to survive. For our enemy attacks for no sane reason and we are saved solely through some display of anger injected hyper-masculine display of force.

Just as how some avoid describing homosexuals as people who have hurts, grievances, dreams, contributions to make, and legitimate issues to address, we rarely portray our enemies as being human. This is because both groups are all too often painted as demons who must be exorcized and destroyed rather than be understood. And in shutting our ears to what they would say to us, we slam the door on all possible peaceful resolutions. For peaceful resolutions often require that we first look into a nonmagic mirror that tells us how we might have contributed to the conflict as opposed to conveniently regarding their attacks on us as the first strike. When we can't handle that truth, we use hyperbole to describe our enemies and give ourselves the energy and permission needed to do far worse to them than they might have done to us. What we don't realize is that the more enemies we slaughter, whether with  words or weapons, the more we fall from humanity. And that affects how we relate to our families and neighbors. Many of those who have actually had to kill an enemy soldier or combatant know this, they live with this. They have forever crossed a chasm for which there is no bridge to return.

WW II veterans Gene Larocque and Howard Zinn have said that our country has learned the wrong lessons from WW II and thus makes war the rule rather than the exception. And tribalism (a.k.a., patriotism) makes us so gullible that we easily follow any flag waving opportunist into the next war. And in so doing, we engage in a perpetual, king-of-the-hill battle. And history has always told us that nobody stays king forever.

The language that many of us use on our enemies inspires hate and maintains the status quo of constant war. That is because our choice of words are often designed to distance ourselves from them. The more we distance ourselves, the greater license we give to our emotions. So when we are far enough away, we are both able and required to take extreme actions against them with inner impunity, or so we think.

Perhaps, if we focused on our own faults more than we point, with animosity, our finger at the sins of gays or other groups we dislike, we would do the same with our enemies. And perhaps, the more we also acknowledged our own faults when we accuse our enemies of wrongdoing, we would be more inclined to negotiate to resolve differences nonviolently rather than to shoot first and forget to ask any questions. After all, addressing our own sins first is a fixed cost of knowing God. And perhaps if we acknowledged the vast contributions that gays and others have made to us as individuals and our society, we would also see the valid concerns of our enemies that we would be more inclined to reach out in peace. After all, seeing only the sins of the other was what the pharisee in Jesus's parable on the two men praying did and he went home condemned.

Why The Reformed Church Cannot Work For Peace

During a Veterans For Peace protest outside the White House a few years ago, I had a very brief conversation with journalist/activist Chris Hedges. Though as a fundamentalist, I have serious disagreements with Hedges on theology, I very much appreciate his writings and have a deep respect for the courage he has shown in his life. And I hasten to add that we ignore his words about the direction of our country at our own peril. In our exchange, I told him of my efforts to get people from my denomination involved in peace activism. Though I don't remember what he exactly said, when I told him that I belong to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), he communicated a message of resignation. Basically, I have no hope, according to Chris. Today, I now have a better understanding of what he meant.

Chris was right about the OPC to a certain extent. Pertaining to the older members of the denomination and those in control, there is little to no hope for change. There is hope among the young people though.

Why is there little to no hope for the older members and those in control? Before that question can be answered, one must briefly describe the OPC and its sister denominations. The OPC and its sister denominations follow the teachings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and a select set of confessions and catechisms. The extra biblical documents they follow most closely include the Belgic Confession of 1561, the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563, the Canons of Dort of 1619, and the Westminster Confession and Larger and Shorter Catechisms. The most revered of these documents are the ones from Westminster. If we used the language of Jesus's day to describe these documents as a whole, we would call them the traditions of men. Or in this case, we can call them the Reformed Traditions. For just as Jesus used the word "traditions" to describe the interpretations of the Scriptures of his day, so can we do the same when referring to the interpretations of the Scriptures that today's church relies on.

The ministers from these denominations tell us that the Reformed Traditions, especially the ones from Westminster, provide the best system of doctrine of what is taught in the Scriptures. This calling the Reformed Traditions the best is a rather vague statement that is pregnant with ambiguity. For if what is meant is that after reading or sampling most, if not all, the interpretations and systems that try to describe what the Bible teaches, they think that the Reformed Traditions provide the most accurate picture of what the Bible says, then I fully agree. After all, this meaning for the word best allows for a great deal of disagreement as well as a laissez-faire attitude toward relying on material from outside of the these documents. But, if what is meant by calling the Reformed Traditions the best is that the Reformed Traditions provide the authoritative rendition of the theology taught in the Bible, then there are problems. And when one looks at the vows for church officers in the OPC and its sister denominations, tragically, the latter meaning of the word best seems to hold sway. For the Church officers are to "receive and adopt" these traditions, especially the Westminster ones, while allowing a minimal number of disagreements.

There are problems with regard to the Reformed Traditions, regardless of which documents you elevate the most, being any kind of authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures. By putting these traditions on such a high pedestal, they start to compete with the Scriptures for our attention. When we so admire these traditions, we are tempted to spend more and more time understanding these traditions and less and less time reading the Bible because these traditions become the key that unlocks the mysteries in God's Word. And when we have such a high regard for the Reformed traditions, if we also struggle with understanding the Bible, we are tempted to regard these traditions as Catholics regard their priests or venerate the Pope. That is the Reformed Traditions become an intermediary between us and the Bible.

The dynamics that result from having such a reverence for these Traditions tend to prohibit its adherents from working for peace. For, the degree to which one disagrees with the Reformed Traditions shows one's disagreement with the Scriptures. And to prove if a new or rediscovered insight is right or wrong, such as VanDrunen's definition of God's 2 kingdoms, one must FIRST appeal to the Reformed Traditions for support. Here is where reverence for and mastery of the Reformed Traditions can become a competition and thus result in tribalisms inside the Church at first and outside later. Inside the Church, one must definitively show that the Reformed Traditions had, in one way or another, already supported one's own positions. Those who disagree will also do the same. And thus we have these battles as to who is best interpreting the Reformed Traditions. Outside the Church, many Reformed Christians adopt an us verses them attitude toward the world. They believe that the writers of the Reformed Traditions have everything to teach the world and nothing to learn from it--to adopt a Martin Luther King line. So what many Reformed church leaders do when trying to respond  to a pressing issue of the day is to read these Traditions without questioning while avoiding all other sources of information. Just think of what is being said here; those who wrote the Reformed Traditions had nothing to learn from people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King. Neither do the writers of the Reformed Traditions have anything to learn from Hellen Keller, Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Einstein, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and alike.

Now should one appeal to the Scriptures to prove something here, it is usually done from having studied the Scriptures through the Reformed Traditions first. Thus, such a person has studied the Bible through systems that are viewed as providing almost divinely inspired cookie cutters that shape what the Bible can and cannot say. A similar effect can be seen in churches that adhere to Dispensationalism. It isn't the mere use of the Reformed Traditions that is wrong here. For one could use the Reformed Traditions as providing flawed models of thought that comment on the Scriptures. But after a certain point, the more reverence one has for the Reformed Traditions, the less this is done.

Another problem here is that, all too often, equal weight is put on all of the parts of the Reformed Traditions. This means that what the Reformed Traditions teach us about how to relate to each other is to be treated with the same respect that the statements about God and salvation are treated with. The implication is clear but not carried out. Rather, the intention here is to maintain uniformity and obedience. The issue is control.

So how does all of this inhibit those who follow the Reformed Traditions from working for peace, world peace to be specific? The first way all of this hurts our efforts in working for peace can be seen in how we are to relate to those in authority. The second way the Reformed Traditions keep its especially older adherents from joining  peace movements is that it kills the curiosity that causes us to not question by instilling a phobia to complexity.

Let's face it, the writers of the Reformed Traditions were authoritarians. The twenty-third chapter of the Westminster Confession said that the government was to preserve the Church and was to punish "blasphemies and heresies." And though many in today's Reformed churches do not agree with the parts of this chapter that gives the government control over religious statements,  this was the mentality of the writers. And they lived in a time where elite-centered governments were in style. Those in authority were to obeyed, not questioned. To use the language of the Westminster Standards, those in authority or who are older are our "superiors" while we are their "inferiors."

The Reformed Traditions spoke in unison about our duty to obey the government. Both the Heidelberg and the Westminster Catechisms declare that obedience to the government is part of our keeping of the 5th commandment to honor our parents. In fact, the Westminster Catechisms explicitly interpret the 5th commandment as demanding that we submit to all of our superiors.

On the other hand, all those in authority have their responsibilities too. For some of the Reformed Traditions state that, as just mentioned, the government is to punish those who teach what is wrong. One only needs to remember how Servetus was burnt at the stake by Calvin's Geneva because of heresy. Besides that, the government was to encourage and reward and defend those who are good and punish evildoers. However, Government is not to provoke the people to wrath. When one compiles all that the Reformed Traditions say, the government is to be an instrument used by God to protect and guide us.

But what do the Reformed Traditions say we should do when evil results come from governments ordained by God to do good? Here, not much is said except that we should be patient with the failings of those in authority and pray for them and that we are only obligated to obey laws that are both just and not contrary to the Scriptures. But not being obligated to obey unjust laws can mean different things to different people. To the apostles, it meant preaching the Gospel despite being commanded not to. To Martin Luther King, disobeying unjust laws meant ignoring those laws that did not treat people fairly and as equals. To King, disobedience to such laws are not the concern of the law's targets only, but of all who would are concerned for others. But at the same time, King stated that we are also submitting to the authorities when we peacefully and lovingly submitting to the consequences of such disobedience (see King's Letter From A Birmingham Jail).

When we look at the Reformed Traditions, we see that there is a tendency toward tribalism built into commands to obey the government. Some even say that explicitly (see the Summary and Conclusion from John Frame's Toward A Theology Of The State). That is there is a certain myopia taught by the confessions and catechisms regarding our relationship with our government and nation. According to the Reformed Traditions, we are to submit to our own leaders, relying on them for guidance and protection. Meanwhile, these traditions say nothing of be mindful of the world outside. Should this bother us considering human history and how governments will say anything to garner and maintain popular support? But, we are told to submit to those in authority so we can lead peaceful and quiet lives, so we can keep to ourselves.

We should note the role tribalism plays in wars. For tribalism does not consist merely of some kind of familial, religious, ethnic, ideological, or national sense of belonging. We all belong to groups and belonging to a group does not mean we practice tribalism. Tribalism refers to the degree of loyalty one has for one's own group. The greater the loyalty people have for their groups, the greater the tribalism that exists. The greater the tribalism, the more people embrace moral relativity. That is because the greater the loyalty people have for their groups, the more right and wrong is decided by who does what to whom. Sooner or later, moral absolutes fade from the picture of ethics. The more we judge moral wrongs by what ill effects others cause us, the more self-righteous we will be in answering alleged evil with real evil. And how will we know that our government is practicing real evil in its responses when we depend on it for guidance and protection as the Reformed traditions tell us to?

When we see that history has provided us with a plethora of examples of the real reasons why nations go to war, that they are moved by avarice and ambition, and how these same nations lie to their own citizens so as to recruit their help to fight these wars, how can we be content with the Reformed Traditions' view of how we are to submit to the government? If we have an ounce of care for anyone outside of our own littles worlds, how can we follow the Reformed Traditions here?

To question or even challenge the Reformed Traditions within the Reformed community is to be seen as a troublemaking pariah. This perception often reveals more about the community than the individual. The community reacts this way to challenges to the Reformed Traditions because such challenges cause one-and-many panic attacks. This is because change can cause some to be afraid that they are losing vital connections to the past. So the question becomes for those in the Reformed community, how much change can we undergo and still call ourselves Reformed? The question reveals our problem. Our problem is that we are not asking ourselves the right question. Our problem is not whether the next change will disqualify us from being Reformed. The question is whether the next change either moves us closer to or takes us away from Christ? We should note that our greatest fear here reveals our greatest treasure.

One of the mottos in the Reformed Churches is that we are always reforming. And yet, the more reverence we have for our Reformed Traditions, the more we resist reform. And the older one is, the more one is likely to revere the past and resist change. This is why there is little to no hope for having the older members of the Reformed churches work for peace. But, amongst the young people there are stirrings that doctrine without love and the right works is not worth sticking around for. And indeed, some are not. But some of the some are also showing us that if we do not change what we can afford to, they will leave and change what they can't afford to let go of.

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

Reviewing John Frame's View Of War

There are certain people I do not mind criticizing. But there are others whom I hate to criticize and that is because of my past experiences with them. John Frame, former Westminster Seminaries and current Reformed Theological Seminary professor falls in this latter group. I have very fond memories of John from my days at Westminster Theological Seminary outside of Philadelphia. There, I was an average student but only on a good day and John not only taught with intelligence and a strong desire to follow the Scriptures, he provided a great Biblical example of graciousness, at least from what I saw. The Biblical example of graciousness exhibited by many of the Westminster faculty back then should never be underestimated because a common trap for seminary students studying in the Westminster tradition is to devour the books of John Calvin and Cornelius Van Til in hopes of becoming the fastest theological and apologetic gunslingers in the U.S., if not in the world. The graciousness that I saw in Frame and others back then showed that there is more to practicing apologetics than using an presuppositional model of thought to confuse another person into submission.

In addition to all of the above, Frame would share with those of us students who were Jazz fans his thoughts on music.

All of these warm memories of Professor John Frame makes the kind of disagreement I have with him on war very painful. The articles I will be referring to are Frame on Just War Theory, Frame on Civilian Soldier, Response To "What It Was Like," and Who Owns Palestine.

In the first article, Frame correctly observes that the Just War Theory consists mostly of questions and he correctly points to the Scriptures as our moral compass. The problem with his pointing, however, is that he refers to the wars in the Old Testament without context. Yes, "war is hell" according to the Scriptures and you put everything into it. In addition, he states that war is the prerogative of the civil magistrates and that pre-emptive war might be necessary. But he leaves out the context of the wars fought in the Old Testament. The wars fought by the nation of Israel had a redemptive historical component that no longer exists today. Israel was ordered to attack and conquer to dwell in the land promised to Abraham's descendants in order to dwell with God as a this side of Heaven restoration of the Garden of Eden (see the last post on Old Testament Wars). Thus, unless a nation is repeating the whole nine yards of responding to direct revelation as Israel did, its wars and tactics cannot be used as a model.

Likewise in his article, Frame On Civilian Soldier, Frame states that there are many times when there is little difference between civilians and soldiers. In a few of the examples he cites to justify this view,  examples such as in Vietnam when children would often greet American soldiers with grenades and in Israel where teenage girls were being used as suicide bombers, Frame forgets to mention the context of the conflict. In Vietnam and as now in Israel, there is a context. The context for the civilian attacks was, and still is, the violence visited on them by the invading soldiers. Couldn't this context lead us to reason that civilian violence was the invading military's fault?

Certainly John can say that war is horrible. But except for reading a soldier's account of the Vietnam war (see Response To "What It Was Like,")  he says it abstractly and dispassionately. When he does speak with feeling about war, it is not for the first victims, it is for the soldiers involved. And thus as bad as war is, he expresses no urgency in preventing it and there are three reasons for this. One reason could be location. WW II veteran, Admiral Gene Laroque, stated that because our wars are always in some other country, we cannot see how horrible they are.¹ Perhaps if John lived in Lebanon, Palestine, or Afghanistan where wars can occur more regularly, his theology on war would be different. Or if John had spent time with Chris Hedges as Hedges was a war correspondent, again, John would have a different view (see Hedges speak in War Is A Force).

 Yes, John says that the Christian will only support war when it is necessary for the civil magistrate to wage it; but he also calls it "a time-honored way of establishing sovereignty." This becomes the second reason John can't speak strongly against war for war is a game of those in authority and, for too many Christians, Romans 13 makes our first concern the protection of the prestige of our leaders rather than safekeeping of the least of these. This is also seen when he strongly expresses a desire for a way out for conscientious objectors, there is no such expression for the civilian victims. In fact, it is the duty of the regular citizen and the most vulnerable to "die for the sins of their representatives."

And this leads to the third reason why John can't muster the courage to take a stand against war and he is not alone in this. Despite the track record of the Old Testament prophets, most in the Reformed Church can't find the words to speak against those who are ordained by God to bring justice but do just the opposite. Most reformed ministers tell their congregation to follow the words of Peter and Paul to be submissive. While Paul emphasizes that we should do so in order to avoid punishment, Peter adds to that to submit to the government silences our critics. According to them, all of this brings credit to the Gospel. So most Reformed ministers preach that we should submit and if that brings suffering, then it will glorify God. In addition, many Reformed ministers teach that we should submit to the authorities and share the Gospel by leading peaceful and quiet lives. However, it is odd that those who have such a high esteem for the Gospel would prefer personal peace to working for justice.

In addition, these ministers set up a false dichotomy here between submission and speaking out. For from Moses to John the Baptist, God's prophets have righteously challenged those in authority. And all too often, those challenges have led to unjust suffering. The same applies in this age. Martin Luther King, who cited Augustine on how unjust laws are not really binding, had to balance between breaking such laws and submission to those in authority. He concluded that not obeying unjust laws while willingly and lovingly accepting the consequences shows the highest respect for the law because it can make the community sensitive to injustice (see King's letter from a Birmingham jail). The contrast we see in King's approach to submission to those in authority and that preached by Reformed ministers is that King is submitting to the position, principles and values while many Reformed ministers are submitting to people who, historically speaking, are driven by avarice and ambition.

Perhaps a better way of challenging John Frame's views on war is to ask him a hypothetical question. John, suppose I was a soldier in the Wehrmacht who was part of the invasion of Poland and you were a Polish Jew whom I happened upon. I have been taught by my government that I am fighting in Poland to protect Germany, free Polish Germans, and stop or limit the future Bolshevik invasion and by you via your writings on war that humanitarian concerns play a second fiddle to doing what is necessary to achieve "legitimate military objective". Before I shoot, the question I have for you is not what would stop you from being shot, but what would stop me from committing murder?

John, that is the question that troops of every sovereign nation must ask of all who have your view of war and the civil magistrates. Why? It is because a government does not have to be as bad as the Nazi Germany government for it to command its soldiers to commit murder and other atrocities. To say otherwise is to imply that Nazi Germany set the minimal standard for evil--an implication that is a horrendous outrage. Now that we are living in the age of information and democracies, we all bear a great responsibility for the actions of our governments and are thus more culpable when we cooperate or sit in silence as our governments practice injustice.

John, this last point is contrary to what you and most other Reformed teachers and ministers teach. For you and most Reformed teachers and ministers say that we are to always be held accountable by those in authority but we are never allowed to return the favor. However, if we can know what our governments are really doing because of our modern access to information, following your advice, even if we are allowed a conscientious objectors status makes us complicit in their crimes. Our silence or submission to these authorities can sometimes cause us to have the same blood on our hands that they have on theirs.

Perhaps the last paragraph of Frame's article on Civilian Soldier shows my former teacher's greatest fall, a partial fall from humanity. This fall shows how a Reformed minister of the Word can sometime become a Biblical automaton. For there, while he recognizes some of the true reasons for war, he regards humanitarian concerns as niceties that are to be readily sacrificed for "legitimate military objectives."After all, according to John, "legitimate military objectives" come first. No John! There are two commandments that come first. These two commandments are to love God with our whole being and to love our neighbors as ourselves. And we can say about these commandments what Chris Hedges says about morals; these commandments may not protect us from harm but they can protect us from doing what is wrong.

A final note, I had to revise this article because I had overlooked the article John Frame wrote called Response To "What It Was Like." I apologize for not including the article in the first version of this post. Though inclusion of the article did not change the main points made, it did moderate some of my comments.

1.    Voices Of A People's History Of The United States, by Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove ,pg 374.

What We Should And Should Not Learn From The Old Testament Wars

I am writing this post for two of the most important people in my life. The first person is my best friend who started me on my journey to the political left without ever discussing politics. She did this by the care and compassion she showed for others. My best friend struggles, however, with the concept of God's judgment. It seems cruel and unnecessary to her and many others.

The second person is one of my favorite and most trusted authors to read, Noam Chomsky. Please realize that Noam does not know me personally and could not, at no fault of his own, tell me from Adam. But his undying passion for fairness and compassion, especially seen in his teaching of the Principle of Universality, which we either adhere to or perish, demand that we address his sharp objections to the Old Testament wars and God's character (see page 14 of this link). His passion for fairness has changed many of my beliefs about economics and politics to more humane and Biblical positions.

My fear for these two important people in my life is that, for understandable reasons, they might disregard the Biblical stories of the wars in the Old Testament as something that is very depraved. This is an understandable position since if the world had used the Old Testament wars as a basis for justice at Nuremberg, it is most likely that the Nazis would have never stood trial for their horrible atrocities.

At the same time, this post could be written for many of my conservative friends who use the Old Testament wars to challenge my peace activism. I'm afraid that they too might have learned some wrong lessons from these wars. The danger for them is not the discrediting of the Bible because of war but the stigmatizing of peace and compassion because of certain parts of the Bible as well as an idolatrous regard for tribalism. When my conservative friends stumble here, they join or support the world in its gang wars.

Is there any good that could come from the Old Testament wars? Certainly not if all time is the same and there is no special intervention of God in history. This is why liberals, who see no supernatural and reduce all reality to the natural and who are concerned with absolute values, morals, and compassion, have no use for these wars. This is understandable. Under such a world, the Israelites had no justification for their brutal attempts to ethnically cleanse the land and maintain possession of it.

So why were the Israelites allowed not just to invade Canaan, but to kill those whom we would call innocent civilians? The incomplete answer is to say God told them to. Though this is true, according to the Bible, we need more information. We need to know why God told them to do this. We need to know this because even though what we will learn may not change the minds who find these wars abhorrent, what we learn change those who support the Old Testament wars so that they will not use these wars to support today's barbarity.

The Old Testament wars had a redemptive-historical purpose back in the day. That purpose was to establish God's people in the land God promised to Abraham so that Israel could eventually do its part in bringing Christ into the world. Imitating Israel's actions in Canaan could only be done by those who are coldheartedly arrogant, such as the Puritans who thought America was their Canaan. God was giving the Israelites the land as a partial restoration of the Garden of Eden, as an earthly Heaven. The abundance of both food and commands indicate this while God's dwelling with them confirms it. Many instructions were spelled out in detail and keeping them was the condition for God's people to dwell in the land, to stay in the Garden.

We should note here that there were differences between the Garden and Canaan. There was only one command in the Garden, there are many commands given to the Israelites. There were no animal sacrifices in the Garden in contrast to the sacrifices in Israel. And God walked in the Garden with Adam and Eve, God's presence in Israel was veiled and He spoke to the people through Moses. These differences are because while Adam started his residence in the Garden as a sinless man, each Israelite was full of sin (Deuteronomy 9:4-5) and sinners need laws. So just as the Garden of Eden was a land of plenty given to Adam and Eve, the land of Canaan was to be a place of plenty (Deuteronomy 8:7-10) and peace for the children of Abraham (Deuteronomy 12: 8 - 11).

So if  God's purpose with Israel was good, why were the Israelites allowed to ethnically cleanse the land rather than share their spiritual bounty with the indigenous population? It was because God was using the Israelites to judge the people in Canaan for their sins (Deuteronomy 9: 3-6). The expulsion of the Canaanites could be seen as somewhat similar to Adam and Eve being expelled from the Garden. Only here, the instruments of God's judgment, the children of Abraham, are also guilty and are thus warned not to forget their past with God.

It is in the expulsion of the residents of Canaan, as well as the expulsion from the Garden, that we the immediate purpose for judgment. That purpose is the removal of sin. We see in the Scriptures that God cannot dwell with sin. That is no town is big enough for both God and sin. And since God was giving the land to the Israelites in order to fulfill His promise to Abraham and to dwell with the people, sin had to go.

And as hard as that judgment was for those nations, it became even more a salvation for God's people. This is a theme that is so often repeated throughout the Bible. God's judgment on sin brings salvation to His people. In the Old Testament times, the sins being judged were often the sins of the nations that were either in the promised land before Israel or the nations that surrounded it. But Israel was not excluded from judgment either. When they persisted in sin, they too were expelled from the land.

So since Israel was God's instrument of judgment on some of the nations in the Old Testament, should Christians eagerly volunteer to become instruments of judgment today? Or, in other words, should Christians be eager to fight their own holy wars? The answer is no and the reason can be derived from the Bible. For just as we see God's self-revelation become full as we reach the New Testament, so we see a clearer picture of who are God's enemies at the same time. That is as we see God having fully revealed Himself in Christ, so we see the sin that merits God's immediate judgment was the sin of all of us. Only instead of everyone being judged for their own sins, Christ bore the judgment for those who believe in Him. So again, we see how God's judgment brings salvation to His people by removing sin. Only in the New Testament, instead of people bearing the punishment for their own sins, the innocent Christ suffers suffers instead and the people are saved as their sins are removed.

In this New Testament change of scenery, we see the children of Abraham and the promises but with two changes. First, the children of Abraham are now identified as those who share Abraham's faith that God would fulfill His promises regardless of one's own impotence (Galations 3: 6 - 9). The second change is that we are not given a land to possess as part of a restoration of the Garden and a glimpse of Heaven. Rather, we are told to engage in a purpose-driven wandering throughout the world. We are told to go to every part of the world to make disciples of Jesus. And thus, because of this second difference, we have no home on earth (Hebrews 13:14). So we have no right to assume that we can bring God's judgment on the heathen through war and removal. Rather, we war against sin by preaching the Gospel knowing that if God was to treat everybody according to their sins, none of us could stand. We come to help the unbelievers as equals in sin telling them how they can be rescued.

It is the overlooking of the necessity of this redemptive-historical nature of God's past judgment on sins that is the major problem for all three parties who were addressed above. For my best friend, the removal of sin is necessary for our dwelling with God and for Heaven to be any different from a war torn earth. Again, if we go back to Deuteronomy 9, we see that if the Israelites do not completely remove the sinful nations God was judging, then Israel's venture into their version of the Garden of Eden would bring no change to the land. Likewise in the last days, if sin is not removed through the completed salvation of the believer and the Final Judgment, then Heaven would be nothing more than an eternal version of our current earth. It would be place with eternal suffering.

For Noam Chomsky, whom I consider to be a mentor through his writings, though challenging God's authority should bring more warnings than what the Surgeon General could ever write, that does not imply that we give those in authority a free pass. Rather, we must follow Chomsky's lead in challenging those who would abuse others regardless of their rank. But we must also realize that the wars during the Old Testament wars were never meant to provide a general rule for war. Those wars had a specific, non-repeatable purpose and so we do not need to reject God's Word here because of the brutality of those wars. In addition, we need to recognize God's right to judge his creation simply because the difference between God the creator from his creation. For it is through God's judgment that we are delivered from sin some of which includes oppressing and hurting others. Despite his objections to the violence in the Bible, all Christians should read what he wrote about the transition of Christianity during Constantine's time (access article). This might help reduce the idolatrous tribalism that many American Conservative Christians currently cling to.

And for the American Conservative Christian whose pedestal for patriotism makes it an idol, as was written for Chomsky, the Old Testament wars had a unique time, place, and purpose. Thus to use those wars as a justification for patriotically supporting America's wars is to ignore God's plan of redemption in order to some self-serving form of Constantinian Christianity. Here, American Conservative Christians need to see how such a Christianity runs completely counter to the progressive of revelation that is in the Bible. These Christians put themselves in a position of having to compromise the Gospel for the sake of American Exceptionalism. Such Christians must remember that America is not their home, Heaven is. And they must remember that all Christians are called to live for the Gospel rather than the American Dream.

We could sum up the problem people have with rejecting or misusing the Old Testament wars as misunderstanding the context of these wars. These wars had a unique role to play in Biblical history. In addition, we need to see the full context of God's judgment of people. It is there to remove sin, which is a cancer that kills all of us, and thus bring salvation to His people.

The Circles Of Love

There is a troubling tendency among some preachers whether they be liberals and conservatives. The problem is there is a growing tendency to using single passages from the Bible as the basis for a topical sermon. The clear implication made by those who do this is that the single passage being cited contains everything that the Bible has to say on a given topic. This is a great technique for those who favor bully pulpit to push favorite causes, but it also traps trusting parishioners unawares.

The not ready for topical sermon passage I am thinking of today is John 13:35 where Jesus tells his disciples that they will know them by how they love one another. When used as the basis for a topical sermon, the implication is that we are to proclaim God's love to the world primarily by how we love fellow believers. This would give us permission, if not encourage us, to live as much like the Amish as possible while trying to fulfill the Great Commission. We would then be reaching out to the world by asking them to be voyeurs as we perform in a soundproof glass room where we fellowship with and serve people who most resemble us. However, if we read through the rest of the Bible, we see that there additional ways to show that we belong to Jesus

This passage in John brings us to the subject of whom should we love. As life would have it, there is  more than one group to love; there are four, as illustrated in the above "circles." We are commanded to love 3 of them while love for self is assumed (see Matthew 22:39).

After loving ourselves, we are to love those in our various tribes. For our purposes here, we can think of a tribe as any group to which we belong such as family, church, business, school, political party, nation, and any group that revolves around an activity or an ideology. Outside of self-love, this is the second easiest love to summon from ourselves in part because we are loving those who either resemble us or give us something of value. A very common example that is treasured by some idealists is the love for one's nation. In fact, giving one's life for one's nation is, in America, all too often seen as next to godliness. Of course, some of the even more ardent patriots may not love every citizen of his or her country. Tom Lehrer's satirical song National Brotherhood Week poked fun at both the divisions of people that can exist in a country and superficial efforts to bridge these gaps.

We should note the dangers of tribal love and most of these dangers are because people are content not to extend love to those outside their tribes. One danger is being reluctant to use necessary moral absolutes to judge the behaviors of those from one's own group. This is especially true when hostilities are taking place. Another danger is the belief that as long as one takes care of their own, they can excuse themselves from fulfilling moral obligations to all others. This danger is an ethic of many who embrace a mob or gang mentality but it is also embraced, in varying degrees, by those who revel in patriotism. The thinking here is that as long as I take care of my people, I have fulfilled my obligations and can either neglect others or even abuse others.

However, Jesus calls us to love and serve those from two additional groups who, as the above picture illustrates, are a farther distance from ourselves than those from one from our tribes. In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus is asked what is the greatest commandment. Jesus, in the spirit of generosity, gave the questioner two and, according to Him, the commandments were close. We are to love God with our whole being (vs 37) and we are to love our neighbor as ourselves (vs 39). The word neighbor may at first sound like a return to tribalism but that is until we read Jesus's explanation in Luke 10:25-37. There, a pharisee asked Jesus who was one's neighbor. In response, Jesus taught the parable of the Good Samaritan. And according to that parable, those who cross our path and are in need are our neighbors. Thus, this parable challenges us to reach farther from ourselves to love. We are to love those who are different from us.

The last group whom Jesus tells us to love are our enemies (Matthew 25:46-47). Now just because we will have different feelings for those who anger and attack us than those who care about us does not mean we cannot love them. Martin Luther King talked about this difference in caring when he was alive. He was a realist and realized that we might not any affection for our enemies. But that does not mean that we are not to return love for hate. Jesus tells us to care and pray for them and this is regardless of how they have treated us. According to King, we are to avoid responding to them with either external or internal violence, which means that that we are avoid hurting or hating them. We are directed to hope and work for their welfare.

At the beginning of this post, we talked about how people will know we are Christ's disciples by how we love our brothers and sisters in Christ. And yet, this is not the only indication that we belong to Christ. When Jesus talked about loving one's enemies, He described it as a way by which we will distinguish ourselves from the world. This is because, as Jesus said, even the godless love their own.

Is there a conflict between John 13:35 and Matthew 5:46-47 here in how we let the world know who we are? There is only when we think in exclusive-or terms. We need to realize that both passages tell us to imitate Him by our love for others. In John 13, Jesus describes how we should love fellow believers and in Matthew 5, we are told whom to love. For Christ came to earth to die for those who, at the time, were His enemies (Romans 5:10).

Love can help bring peace to the earth. But it can only do that when we expand love's borders way beyond our comfort zones. For our love to help foster peace, we must extend it way past the people we hang with. We must love those whose need calls us to be uncomfortable. We must force ourselves, when necessary, to help meet the needs of those strangers who cross our paths. In addition, we must show our enemies that a new relationship is possible. If we meet their hate with the kind of love God shows us in Christ, we have a chance to reduce the hate and violence in the world. If we respond in kind, we show that we belong to the world rather than to Christ.

It is to the Conservative Church's shame that it is restrained from showing Biblical love to strangers and its enemies by the tractor beam of tribal loyalties. The stronger the beam, the less we travel to the outer circles of people to love.  In particular, family, patriotism, loyalty to ideology, and preference for those who share our religion cause us to treat people with preference rather than love Not only is this sin in and of itself (James 2:9), it dishonors Christ especially when non-Christians show this kind of love. This discrepancy causes dissonance and hurts the credibility of the Gospel. And yet, it is a dissonance that is in our faces as some from the Left are not just calling us, but are also laying their own freedoms and even lives on the line for others by challenging those with wealth and power. Unfortunately, this is a spectator's sport to most Conservative Christians who have nested themselves in their cocoons of doctrines and confessions fervently hoping for the rapture to come before time forces them out into the world.

This article was written partially because of my interactions with a fellow blogger and activist, Tom Over. Visit his blog at lovecause.org/