Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs for May 12, 2021

 April 30

To R. Scott Clark and his article that tries to answer accusations made against a theological camp of which he is a member: 2 Kingdom Theology. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I understand and respect Clark's reactions to the R2K monicker and the allegations made against 2KT listed in the above article. It sounds like the motivation for the allegations is that of establishing guilt by association. And that can be troublesome especially when the allegations are not true.

But I wish that a couple  of the above allegations were true because they could address some of the deficiencies in 2KT. There is also the weakness exhibited in the above defense provided by Clark of defending positions by relying more on theology than the Scriptures. Below are some of the allegations that I wish were true.

Allegation #1: not only do I wish that 2KT would support civil unions for same-sex couples, I want it to defend same-sex marriage in society, not in the Church. Why is that? It is because to do otherwise would be to work against full equality for those in the LGBT community in society. In addition, it is some given theologies, not the New Testament, that prohibits society from allowing same-sex marriage.

We should note that as strong as Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1 is, it does not move homosexuality outside of what can be normally expected of unbelievers. In addition, in I Cor 5, Paul deals with a heterosexual sin that is described as being beyond what should be expected from unbelievers. In describing that sin in that way, Paul has implied that that heterosexual sin is worse than homosexuality. And in neither Romans 1 or I Cor 5 does Paul suggest that any social sanctions should be put on the practitioners of those sins. By removing the practitioner of the gross heterosexual sin from the Church, he has handed that person over to society while stating that he cares not for the purity of society. Such does not make a strong New Testament argument for legally prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Allegation #3: There is a compulsion by many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians to find ways to exert a Christian control over society. One such way is to claim that natural law must be, in all cases, the basis for laws governing society. And so when Clark adds that parts of the Scriptures serve as a basis for that natural law, one is vying for some degree of supremacy for the Christian faith over society. And if one was to be consistent there, one would have to denounce democracy when insisting on some degree of supremacy for the Christian faith over society. And because the insistence that all of a natural law that is based on the Scriptures must be legally binding for those in society, 2KT has lost any significant difference it claims to have over Transformationalism.

To give an example for why the insistence by some of my fellow religiously conservative Christians is problematic, one only has to consider the homosexual issue. In nature, homosexuality is practiced in around 1,500 species with benefits to the members of at least some of these species. Thus, to use natural law to argue against homosexuality while natural law, as it can be observed provide contradictory examples in the animal kingdom gives a mixed message.

Insisting on the Christian interpretation of natural law is imposing Christianity on others in a nation that is multi-religious and is based on religious freedom. Jesus warns us against doing so. It is one thing to have our faith as a reason to  protect the rights and lives of those being oppressed, but that is not the case here.

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

May 3

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that takes part of an article on what being woke has caused some people to do. This appeared in Heidelblog.

With all of the falsehoods spread on the internet, there is no way that the claims made in the above article can be verified. Information about the website source is sketchy. The domain site is 3 years old. The name of the organization that owns the domain and basic information about that organization is redacted (see https://www.scamadviser.com/check-website/threadreaderapp.com ). The name of the author of the article cited is incomplete and there is no mention of the name of the organization the author wrote about. So if we are concerned with the commandment prohibiting bearing false witness, what should we do with such a story that allows for no verification? And is it responsible to make the generalizations about those who are woke which Clark makes based on the story?

In addition, to a certain extent, those of us who have been privileged in society will have trouble understanding what the marginalized have to say. Why is that? Perhaps it is what Manfred Max-Neef said about what it takes to understand those who live different lives than we have. He gave being in love with a person as his example. He said that no matter what we have learned from studying the subject of being in love, we can never understand it until we have had that experience. He applied that lesson to poverty as he left academia to live with the poor in order to understand poverty. He found that he really didn't understand poverty until he lived among the poor.

So for those of us who have lived privileged lives, how much can we understand what it means to be marginalized because of one's race, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any factor that has caused one to be marginalized for the most of America's history? The answer to that question doesn't mean that we can't help or try to sympathize. Perhaps we can give some guidance. But can those of use who struggle to observe the problems that the marginalized have lived through and still experience on a day to day basis understand those problems when our privilege has kept us in various bubbles? 

On the other hand, we need to recognize the traps that face some who are marginalized and who are seeking to undo long-term social injustices. The first trap is in how one approaches the solution to social injustices. That trap is to react in a phobic manner where we employ all-or-nothing thinking that throws out everything associated with a given social injustice along with those factors that actually contributed to maintaining those injustices.  This phobic reaction consists of a real fear of not being able to distinguish between those factors that are merely associated with social injustices from the factors that have contributed to social injustices. The phobia reaction is like that what a child might experience who developed a phobia of dogs after getting bitten by a dog. The child is afraid that he/she cannot distinguish a friendly dog from a unfriendly dog and thus is scared of and flees all dogs.  Should we speak harshly to  those who react that way to social injustices they have experienced or should we seek, as much as we can to listen to and learn from them?

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

May 7

To Gene Vieth and Carl Trueman as Veith reviews Trueman's article that compares Marx's view of religion with how society should view Identity Politics. This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos.

Trueman's article

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/04/identity-politics-opium-of-the-people

First, I sm not sure if Veith fairly represents what Trueman is saying about Marx's view of religion. For Veith says Trueman as saying that Marx saw religion as a 'helpful phenomenon.' But note what Trueman said about Marx's view of religion:

Marx has no sympathy for religion, he has deep sympathy for the poor people who put their trust in it.

After quoting Trueman's citing of Marx's famous statement, Veith follows by saying that Marx did not say that religion is oppressive. But if religion enables oppression, how is it not oppressive? Note what Lenin said below as he repeats what Marx' https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm ):

Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

Note that Lenin said what he did from observation, not logical deduction. He said that about religion from how he saw it being used.

As for whether Trueman's interpretation of Marx was accurate when interpreting Marx by saying that Marx had a 'subtle approach to religion' and 'In his view, religion may be false,' we should note what Marx said in the paragraphs that follow is famous line (see https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm ):

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

Besides those points, what Trueman is saying is that what Marx saw religion as being to the people of his day is what identity politics is to us. And he says that for the purpose of completely marginalizing the identity politics movements. And I say that even though Trueman warns against totally dismissing the identity politics' as being self-serving pleading. He is not telling us to learn some of the solutions to the sad state of affairs which he acknowledges to exist from those who are suffering the most. At best, we are to only listen to their complaints to learn about their suffering.

Thus, Trueman's model of the problem here can be illustrated by the relationship that exists between an authoritarian management and labor. On its best days, that management will listen to the complaints expressed by the workers. But then, that management will circle the wagons to develop their own solutions to those problems, at least some of which are caused by management, without asking the workers for their suggestions. Remember that, throughout our nation's history, the Church has had a dominant role in determining what is and what is not acceptable in society. And now that those who have been marginalized, much by what the Church has directed society to accept or reject, have been speaking out, Trueman is saying that Christianity has heard their complaints and will, by itself, solve those problems, at least some of which the Church has created and/or maintained.

Thus it appears that according to Trueman, only Christians can offer suggestions as to what remedies can help the hurting.

Finding Places Between God And Caesar For The Sake Of The Gospel

One of the things that most hinders evangelism today is the Church's credibility. And on the thorns in the side of that credibility is how the Church, especially the Conservative Church,  reacts to the world in what it insists on and what it lets go.

Kim Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses in the light of the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriag serves as an example of when the Conservative Church's demands on society gives reasons for others not to listen to the preaching of the Gospel. For what Davis did was to use her religious convictions, as sincere as they are, as a reason for denying legal rights to a group of people. And the issue of the denial of legal rights is sexual freedom.

But as Joe Paterno once asked how did Nixon know enough to vote Texas #1 in football in 1969 over his undefeated Nittany Lions while he knew nothing about Watergate, unbelievers are asking conservative Christians how come they know so much about dangers of sex while knowing so little about the precarious situation that an exploitive economic system, destruction to the internet, and war and militarism puts most of the world's people in.

See, according to many unbelievers, the Conservative Church in America doesn't know when to talk and when to shut up. For it wishes to speak to those who sin by individuals practicing sexual immorality, but it is complicit in its silence when our economic system sins or when we rely too much on war and militarism. And that doesn't mention our apathy to how our way of life is destroying the environment.

So how is the Christian suppose to intervene here so that he/she both brings honor to the Gospel in the eyes of others while keeping God's Word? The Heidelcast interview conducted by R. Scott Clark on Daryl Hart (click here for page containing Hart's bio) is meant to give some general guidelines that would teach us how (click here for the Heidelblog page containing the link to the interview). But here, we should note that such isn't the setup for the interview. 

How should Evangelicals participate in the political system? On the one hand, Hart rightfully notes that we are different from Israel where God gave specific laws for the people of Israel to follow as His own. Today, no nations have replaced Israel which would call for the Church to not identify with the state in a sense. In addition, we want to follow Jesus' teaching on how to give Caesar what is his and  God what is His--there is a difference between God and Caesar which would come as a great surprise to some world leaders. Neither do we want to attempt to create any New Testament version of Israel as was at least partially done in Constantinianism when Christianity became the state religion which occurred some time after the death of Constantine. Such was a mistake according to Hart. An equal mistake was for the government to claim the right to oversee the Church and pick an official denomination.

According to Hart, America has done a good job at avoiding the mistakes of the past when it comes to practices that violate the separation of Church and state. Hart correctly notes about America that though its population was predominantly Christian, it did not become a Christian nation. It allowed for pluralism though the degree of that pluralism is certainly greater today than ever anticipated by our Founding Fathers.

The distinction in what we owe Caesar and what we owe God constitutes a dualism according to Hart. A dualism that exists between the things eternal and the things temporal, the things unseen and the things seen. the concerns of God and the concerns of man. And thus, Caesar and God give us different sets of rules by which we should live, that is for the most part. And for Christians to expect Caesar to, in any sense, enforce Church laws and regulations would be a mistake. Hart correctly points out that there is no 'blueprint' for a Christian nation in the New Testament. So what Hart does adequately in the interview is to tell the Conservative Church how it should let go of a lot of things it wants to force on society  even though those things are condemned by the Scriptures.

But what is not mentioned in the interview is some of the context for Hart's views here. Hart is a Reformed Theologian who is both an adherent of Two Kingdom Theology (2KT), the Reformed version that is, and a believer in small government--the latter becomes apparent when he briefly mentions how immigration had been handled in the past. What is important about this context is the fact that 2KT basically prohibits the Church to speak as the Church against sins committed by groups, in particular, groups like the state because, at least with Hart, it doesn't acknowledge that groups, like nations or society, commit sins. So while Hart does an adequate job in giving a framework that could help us religiously conservative Christians from imposing our religious views on society so as to make people too mad to listen to us, he does not help us to avoid the problem of Church's complicity with sin by remaining silent in the face of certain sins. And a large part of the reasoning that allows for that comes from Hart's, and Clark's too, notion of an acceptable dualism.

There must be a dualism to accommodate pluralism in society seeing that society is not meant to be the Church. But there is an inconsistency when examining Hart's version of dualism. For when he and others talk about the eternal vs the temporal and the seen vs the unseen, certain temporal states of affairs as they relate to individuals can prevent individuals from enjoying the eternal. Sexual sins or other violations of the Ten Commandments such as theft and murder can affect our eternal state. Now if that is the case for individuals and their sin, how is it any different for individuals  if the are either silent or even participating in what Caesar does as Caesar robs from and kills both our fellow citizens and foreigners through government policies? Aren't killing and robbing when performed by individuals sin? Then how is it any different when the groups we belong to do the same even when the groups we belong include our own nation?

Yes, Hart is more than right in saying that there is no New Testament blueprint that defines a Christian nation or society. But if we leave it at that, we fail to avoid our other problem of the Church when it fails to preach against certain sins. For example, during the time when our nation embraced slavery, several denominations failed to preach and act against it. Likewise, not many Protestant denominations opposed Jim Crow. And not many denominations, especially conservative ones, preached against the Vietnam War.

So today, though there is a growing awareness of the horrors of racism in the Conservative Church, it remains silent about economic classism, the destruction of our environment, and war and militarism. That silence translates into what Jesus called 'stumbling blocks' for unbelievers which prevents them from listening to the Gospel when we preach it. Though not in the interview, Hart has, in his blog (click here) equated calling for the Church to speak out on today's issues as the OT prophets did with wanting to return to Israel's previous covenant status. But here, Hart fails to notice that the Old Testament prophets sometimes preached repentance to other nations besides Israel. This contradicts his reasoning.

Yes, Clark's interview with Hart is helpful and informative. It could help many of us to decide how we can avoid unnecessarily offending unbelievers by trying to create a Christian society or seek a privileged status for Christians in society. But our troubles with protecting the honor of the Gospel has two sides. One side is addressed by what Hart says here and elsewhere, while the other side of remaining silent in the face of corporate sin as the Church did in the past over slavery and Jim Crow remains untouched.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 23, 2014

To R. Scott Clark and his 2nd response to my comment on his blogpost questioning how biblical it is for the Church to try to change culture. This appeared in Heidelblog.


Dr. Clark,
When are you going to understand that quests for justice do not necessarily have anything to do with utopian eschatology? Many quests for justice have fixing an immediate problem as their focus just as when the session of a church intervene to fix an immediate problem when two people in a church have a dispute. This is what I pointed to when I wrote in my 2nd comment:

Also, if we are followers of God, shouldn’t we celebrate every act of justice and peace, regardless of how temporal, rather than thinking in all-or-nothing terms? 

or when I wrote

And finally, I don’t know of anyone who works for justice and peace who presume that they are Christ. Nobody. The ones I know aren’t looking to bring some sort of utopia or the final Kingdom of God. Rather, they are trying to partially address what is before them. 

So while you categorize the concerns which I and others have expressed as being out of bounds by misrepresenting us as being utopian, the problem is still there. Isn't there a problem of being a respecter of persons when we so eagerly preach to the individual sinner to repent of private sins but are silent in the face of system sins especially when these sins are committed by those with wealth and power? And historically speaking, the conservative church tends to align itself with wealth and power. So how does the silence before and thus complicity with sin help the Church be a minister of word, sacrament, and mercy?

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

To R. Scott Clark and his last response to my comments. This is my second attempt to reply to his response seeing that he blocked my last response. This appeared on his Heidelblog


This is my last comment on this discussion. The some questions that come to my mind here are:

1. What does classifying any attempt to improve the current system Utopian say about the current system?

2. Why do you insist that any attempt to improve on the current system is done from an eschatological perspective? I ask this especially because much of my views on changing the system come from secular scholars who do not have a Utopian vision and thus no eschatological perspective.

3. Is your view more based on the Bible or on an affinity for a more simple Christian life?

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

To Elise Hilton and her blogpost on whether the current border crisis was predictable. This appeared on the Acton Blog


When our foreign policies involved coups and support violent dictators and when unfair competition from trade agreements wreck financial sectors as well as temporarily employ workers until cheaper labor is found elsewhere, what shouldn't we expect on our border? To try to address the border crisis without acknowledging our part in creating the need to leave one's country is to embrace something beyond neurosis. 

When Tribalism Becomes A Victim Of Collateral Damage

Back in March, a blogpost (click here) was published here asking for a partial peace and synthesis between the two predominant Reformed views of how the Church should interact with culture. In the one corner stood the Transformation Theology team with its insistence that, due to a low level of common grace in society, the Church needs to try to change culture to make it more amenable to life, God's Kingdom, and hearing the Gospel. In the other corner was the 2 Kingdom Theology (2KT) team which believed that, for the most part, Christians should push for equality for all in society rather for than a privileged position for Christian values in maintenance of society. One reason for the difference in their beliefs was due to different perceptions of the level of God's common grace that is present in society.

Though some handled the conflict in a civil manner, others were so loyal to their theological camps that wars of words often broke out with committed Reformed Christian accusing fellow committed Reformed Christian of compromising the Scriptures. Such was inexcusable. 

Reformed theologians do not have a monopoly over the conflict of how Christians should interact with culture. And thus, Tim Keller answered my request 2 years before it was made (click here). An important part of both listening to Keller's talk and following what is written here involves becoming familiar with the chart that gives a picture of Keller's model of thought (click here). The chart and model of thought comes from Tim Keller's book, Center Church, a book that was wrongly marketed almost exclusively to church leaders and seminary students. This book should have been marketed to the whole church because of its invaluable reference material as well as Keller's analysis of how today's churches are interacting with culture.

You might think from what has been written thus far that I am a big fan of Keller's work here. The answer would be yes and no. The answer would be yes because of his intent, skill, and wisdom at presenting a model that builds bridges across church divides. But the answer is also no because, as with all models of thought, there are more than enough errors--we should note that his model never promised us a rose garden anyway. Still, what Keller's model offers is a way for some Christians to reconcile over their differences. His model provides a way to build bridges and overcome schisms. 

How does Keller's model apply to the title of this blogpost? Divisiveness often results from tribalism. And since the tribalism being exhibited is occurring within the Christian Church, we could call it intramural and thus count it as totally unnecessary, though not unexpected. Tribalism is an extreme loyalty to a group regardless of the focus of that group. In tribalism, we see people being more loyal to a group than they are committed to principles and morals. Thus, in tribalism what is right and wrong depends more on who does what to whom rather than what is being done or said.

What part of Keller's model is battling tribalism? It is the part of the chart called "Blended Insights." With these insights, Keller is telling us that each church group has both something to offer to the other church groups as well as has less to offer than it can learn from rest of the groups combined. So nothing undoes the kind of loyalty that builds tribalism like realizing the deficiencies of one's own group in addition to learning about what other groups have to offer. And as it turns out, each group is strong in an area that the other groups are deficient.

We should also note with Keller's Blended Insights is that his approach was taken before by Martin Luther King Jr. as he tried to reconcile the different philosophies and theologies he encountered in life. King described this process of reconciling different schools of thought as synthesis. Here, King would both filter out what was objectionable in each school of thought and highlight what was positive and thus he showed how different schools of thought could learn from each other. An classic example of such a synthesis can be found when King compares Marxism with Capitalism (click here and start on page 92).

By this time, you should be looking at the chart linked to above which shows Keller's model of thought. His chart consists of 4 quadrants, each representing a different group or set of church approaches to interacting with culture. The x axis measures the degrees of involvement different schools of thought and churches show in interacting with culture with least involvement to the left and the most to the right. The y axis measures the level of common grace each school of though and set of churches perceive to exist in today's society. Those that see a lot of common grace at work in society are placed at the top of the axis and those who see a little to no common grace are located at the bottom of the axis.

Thus, in quadrant one, you have the schools of thought and churches that are both highly involved in working with culture and they already see a significant degree of common grace at work in society. Thus they tend to work more hand in hand with society. The group in quadrant 1 is called the Relevance group. In quadrant 2, you have the schools of thought and churches that are highly involved in changing culture and believe there is less than a sufficient amount of common grace at work in society. The group in quadrant 2 are called Transformationists (I guess the name Transformers was already taken). In quadrant 3, you have those who withdraw from culture because they see very little, if anything at all, that is redeemable in our society and they believe God is calling them to be separate and not involved. And in quadrant 4, you have 2 flavors 2KT followers, the already described reformed group and those who follow Martin Luther's version of 2KT.

And though his model is certainly not perfect, it also needs to be supplemented by additional models to guide the Church in how it should interact with culture. However, Keller does deserve the Universal Church's Nobel Peace Prize for developing a model that enables even Christians to at least partially reconcile with their brothers and sisters of different stripes over the issue of cultural engagement.

Now, even if Keller's model had neither flaw nor inconsistency, it would be inadequate to provide the Church with guidance as to how to engage in culture. Why? It is because Keller's model offers an inside-out view of Christianity's involvement with culture. What is also needed is an outside-in perspective. Why? Because as Christianity has engaged in culture in the past, it has developed a track record. This track record consists of both commendations for the faith as well as stumbling blocks to those who would listen to us preach the Gospel. 

Here, we will focus on how to recognize the stumbling blocks in the Church's track record in dealing with society. A vintage example of why we should study the Church's track record can be found in the context of the French Revolution. Before the Revolution, the Church too often sided with those who had wealth and status in France's Parliament. The result was that the peasants suffered while the church was more than taken care of. Thus, the Revolutionaries perceived the Church as not just a threat but as a mortal enemy. And the behavior of France's Church merited this analysis. At the same time, the Revolution suffered because there was no moderating influence of a true church in their movement. The bloody results are history and testimony to the Church's track record.

Before identifying stumbling blocks we should note that there are at least 3 kinds. The first kind of stumbling block is one we can't do anything about. The offense is found in the message regardless of how it is stated or lived out. The second kind of stumbling is when what the Christian has said or done is fine but we need to be more careful in how we communicate. The third kind of stumbling block is the fault of the Christian. This is where the Christian has preached something that is untrue or has preached truth in an unloving way or has lived in sin.

The model I am proposing to help identify stumbling blocks will be at least as error-proned and incomplete as Keller's model. And my model is not intended to take the place of Keller's model; rather, it is being proposed to supplement Keller's model. Plus, the model I am proposing is a work in progress. With what I am proposing, we will modify Keller's model only in ways that reflect how nonChristians perceive us and add to it in order to include another dimension. 

To represent another dimension, we will add a second grid . Both grids will consist of the same elements and axes.  But one will help show the stumbling blocks that can occur when Christians engage in culture over personal morality issues while the second will help show the stumbling blocks that can occur when Christians engage in Social Gospel issues (click here for Social Gospel Issues).

In addition to adding another grid, I changed the axes labels for the grids according to how what is measured might appear to the nonChristian. So instead of measuring the degree of involvement on the x-axis, my model will measure the degree of control of society sought by Christians as perceived by nonChristians. And instead of measuring the degree of common grace at work which is perceived by the Christian, my y-axis will measure the degree to which the amount of perceived common grace causes the Christian to approach the nonChristian as either a fellow sinner or as a moral inferior. Thus, the model being proposed here is represented by the grids below.

Social Gospel Grid

Personal Morals Grid

Before commenting on the stumbling blocks which this model can help us identify, we should note the change in the chart position for both the Relevance and Two Kingdoms groups. Note that the Social Gospel Grid places the groups in the same quadrants as Keller's model does. But things change in the Personal Morality Grid as the Relevance group shows a libertarian bend with regard to pushing for Christian personal morals in society. In addition, the Two Kingdoms group straddles the y-axis here indicating that how libertarian or authoritarian they are depends on the moral issue involved. For example, the same-sex marriage issue saw at least some 2KT proponents act as authoritarians in prohibiting such marriages.

Now for the stumbling blocks. If nonChristians detect any degree of moral superiority in our attitudes, then we will be viewed as being arrogant and feeling superior to them (check these attitudes with Romans 3: 9, 27). Their reaction to that perception will intensify if they see us come across as authoritarians in pushing our personal morals and views of justice on society. In addition, conservative authoritarianism is often, and sometimes with good reason, associated with anti-intellectualism. But if we are libertarian in approaching our Social Gospel and personal morals, then our apparent air of moral superiority will be less offensive and thus we might be relegated to being irrelevant. In addition, leaning away from the anti-intellectualism of conservative authoritarianism buys some tolerance from non-conservative nonbelievers. Such preferential treatment shows favoritism by non-conservative unbelievers. 

At the same time, those who are libertarian in advancing Social Gospel morals might also be seen as uncaring for those in need. But that depends on the political-social values of the nonChristian. Those nonChristians who lean to the Left will be offended by a lack of concern in advancing Social Gospel morals while those nonChristians leaning to the Right will not. The opposite is true with regard to personal moral issues. As to which group of nonChristians will be offended by depends on to which side of the political spectrum a Church group leans. This is why the political-economic leanings of the Relevance and Transformationists groups are stated as they are.

Another possible stumbling block can occur when Conservative nonChristians observe what could appear as hypocrisy by those in the Relevance group as they come across as fellow sinners while proceeding to act in an authoritarian manner in advancing their Social Gospel values. 

Certainly not all stumbling blocks were identified and this model is a work in progress. But by identifying stumbling blocks, we have more information to work with when combined with what we can gain from Keller's model to determine how we should engage in culture. And we should note that more and/or better models could be created to inform us of the tradeoffs involved in how we relate to culture.

Finally, understanding the stumbling blocks that our groups create can help prevent us from developing the kind of group loyalty that lends itself to tribalism. For the more Christians exhibit tribalism whether it be intramural or in our relationships with nonChristians, the more unnecessary stumbling blocks we create and the less faithful we are to our knowledge of ourselves as sinners and our faith in Christ. Also, since even if the model presented here was a completed and well-thought out work, feedback and corrections are warmly welcomed.