For Luther and for Calvin, the idea that there could be a social movement that would bring about heaven on earth was a theology of glory. It conflated heaven and earth. It failed to recognize the depth of human depravity and the consequences of the fall and sin.
See, because no social movements can bring perfect social justice to earth at the present time, social justice movements have nothing to contribute seems to be Clark's message here.
We should note another overused, conservative Christian characteristic in Clark's rebuttal of social justice movements: authoritarianism. Note who Clark is primarily referring to here. Is he primarily referring to one of the prophets from the Old Testament? Or is he primarily referring to one of the Apostles from the New Testament? BTW, he will refer to the Apostles later but in a supporting role. Or is even referring to Jesus? Again, he will refer to Jesus later but in a supporting role. The answer to all three questions is a resounding NO! He is referring to two heroes of Clark's highly revered Reformation: Luther and Calvin. And this preference for reformed heroes over Biblical examples should remind us of how Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their preference for their traditions rather than the Word of God (click here).
So what we have here in Clark's article on social justice and on Calvin (click here for the article) is a typical conservative approach to social justice from a religiously American conservative Christian perspective. And it matters not that not all religiously conservative Christians in America substantially adhere to the tenets taught by Reformed Theology, Clark (click here for a short bio) still presents a typical American conservative Christian response to social justice.
The typical response is to approach the subject deductively in an all-or-nothing manner after using one's theology, a theology that has been defined solely from the past, to adequately identify all of the issues involved. There is no need for these religiously American conservative Christians to listen to current facts on the ground to compel them to act. There is no need for them to change from supporting the status quo. And that, unfortunately, is part of a rich tradition of conservative Christianity in the last few centuries. It is one where the predominant branch of the Church, in given countries, has supported the status quo--or those with wealth and power to be more precise. Why? Because they are riding on its coattails.
So let's get to Clark's article and his misplaced focus on Calvin. And unless one is use to listening or reading those who have given way to some authoritarian personality type, his article strangely begins about Calvin and on whether he was a tyrant during his reign in Geneva. After all, we have to first dispel the allegations against Calvin before using him as an authority figure whose words and example should be followed without much questioning. Oddly enough, there is no attempt to mitigate Luther's anti-Semitism.
Then Clark goes on to support the quote given above. He describes 3 forms of eschatology where one of the forms does not belong to the others. In other words, 2 of those eschatological forms are defomred while the Reformed one is not perfect but is correct enough. Suffice it to say, if one is working from a deformed eschatological perspective, one's work in social justice will be described as being antagonistic to the Gospel. Please note what Clark says below:
There is a case to be made that Calvin was implicitly Amillennial in his eschatology. Was decidedly critical of “the chiliasts” (historic premillennialists) but however one comes out on that question he was committed to Luther’s distinction between the theology of glory and the theology of the cross, which he laid out at the Heidelberg Disputation in 1518. In short, a theology of glory is a theology that 1) seeks to present one’s self to God on the basis of works; 2) that elevates human reason above divine revelation. The theology of the cross looks to Christ and his righteousness imputed, received through faith alone, resting in Christ alone, according to the Scripture alone.
And just as, in the Gospels when the question was asked if anyone good can come from Nazareth, the question Clark implies is whether anything good can come from a deformed eschatology. And again, without examining any facts on the ground, Clark is determined to deductively dismiss all social justice movements.
It is at this point that Clark then appeals to biblical characters to support the stands taken by his heroes from the Reformation. Clark notes that Jesus said that his kingdom is not of this world and that means that it is not found in activism. In addition, the examples of the Christians in the book of Acts do not show activism to be a tool to be used.
The argument of a lack of examples provided by New Testament Christians to discredit social justice activism assumes the following: that today's Christians have never faced any circumstances or situations that were significantly different from what those 1st century Christians faced and thus their examples are adequate in guiding all of our behavior. What logically follows Clark here, which he would criticize in another article, is biblicism (click here for that article and click there for a definition of biblicism).
Clark finishes by returning to Calvin and how he was faithful because he remained steadfast in employing the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, and the use of church discipline. Thus, there is nothing else that we would need to consider, implies Clark. All of our questions have been answered by selectively, and solely, looking to the past to adequately interpret and guide us in how we react to the present. There is no need to look at today's facts on the ground to determine whether we should join efforts to provide social justice.
There are many practical and biblical flaws in Clark's reasoning. Again, he shows the typical religiously American conservative Christian's reaction to social justice movements. He approaches them from deductive approach only using only his theology from the past to determine what they are about. He, in an authoritarian manner, primarily appeals to heroes such as Calvin and Luther to provide examples of how we should live in today's world. And finally, his use of selective statements from Jesus and the examples of the Christians from the book of Acts is an implementation of biblicism as well as an example of only looking to the past to understand the present. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that Calvin and Luther were people from the Bible, his appeals to their examples would also be a form of biblicism.
Since too much time and space has already been taken to explain Clark's views on social justice, an abbreviated response is required. And one such response would be to point to the work of Martin Luther King Jr. Now, I agree with Clark's preferred school of eschatology and with the fact that we can't bring God's kingdom to earth. And that would put me at odds with the eschatology of Martin Luther King, Jr. However, I find it impossible to dismiss most of King's words about and works for social justice. Rather, King's words and efforts are far more biblical regarding social justice than Clark's conclusions. All we need to do is to compare what King said and did with what the Old Testament prophets said and did or to compare King with what James wrote such as what he wrote about the rich in James 5.
Why do I side with King here despite his deformed eschatology? It is because we have to apply God's Word to today's facts on the ground rather to the facts on the ground of past Christians. It's not that we cannot learn from them, we must. But we live in significantly different worlds and thus we must go beyond what their word and actions. And despite his problematic eschatological views, that is what King did that Clark failed to do despite his theologically correct eschatology.
No comments:
Post a Comment