How Should The Church Identify Politically

 The important question of how Christians should identify politically was given some good input by a Christianity Today article by David Robertson (click here for a short bio).

I could review the whole article (click here for the article) but that would take away from a very important point that Robertson makes about the Church's political identity. I will use a quote from his article to show his point but will vary from his views as to why the quote is important. That quote is made in the following quote:

I thought of that title when I read the various competing propaganda from the Evangelicals for Trump/Biden groups. If these groups are representative of American Christianity, then the Church has already been defeated. Why is that the case? Is it wrong for individual Christian leaders to support a political party or candidate? Of course not. We too are citizens. But we are also citizens of another kingdom and when we start confusing the two – claiming, or creating the perception, that the good news of Jesus means he is endorsing one or other of the candidates - then a line has been crossed.

 
The point of the quote is to warn against conflating our faith with a particular political ideology or party. In other words, we can't identify the Church and the Gospel with any particular political party or movement. To see Robertson's reasons why we shouldn't do that, you need to read his article, which is well written and makes some very good points.

There are two reasons why we cannot confuse what our faith says with our political leanings. First, if we conflate the faith with our political views, we will find that our understanding of the Faith will be more determined by our political views than by the Scriptures. This is a point that Robertson makes while citing the views of Francis Schaeffer. Another way to put it is to say that if we confuse our faith with our political views, what we think the Gospel is will become a servant of our political views. And that is where the Gospel a spiral of change that can end up separating us from the Gospel itself as our understanding of it continually changes and is determined by our political views.

However, I believe that our political views as Christians are more important to us and the Church than Robertson gives credit for. Why? It is because I believe that politics should be considered a subject in practical theology where there is enough ambiguity in the Scriptures to give some general guidance but not enough details for the Gospel to be identified with a given political ideology.

But once we master not letting our political views control what the Scriptures say, what else is there to say? What we should note is that if we conflate the Gospel with a given political ideology, party, or teachings of any individual politicians, we have prevented the Church or a given individual Christian from speaking prophetically to that ideology, party or individual. For if we equate a given political ideology, party, or words of a given politician then that ideology, party, or individual can assume the role of speaking prophetically to God's Word than vice versa. And in fact, that is what we see in the world today with people dictating to the Gospel regarding what the Scriptures can and cannot say.

We should note that the Scriptures come from God while our ideologies and political parties are the creation of people. And that point should be nonnegotiable for all Christians. However, we should note because of our sins and faults, occasionally the outside world can correct some of how we Christians interpret the Scriptures. They can do that not because any of our political ideologies are superior to the Scriptures, but because we can be prone to misunderstand the Scriptures for a number of personal reasons.

Politics is important for Christians especially if we should treat it as a subject in the field of practical theology, which I think we should. But the source for what we know about the Gospel comes from God, through the Scriptures, rather than from man because of whatever insights we might come to realize.

 

 

 

A Promising Title Gives Way To Disappointment On An Important Subject

The title of the article was very promising. Why? The title was: Celebrate Sexual Ethics. Don't Apologize For Them (click here for the article). The article was about how we should regard Biblical sexual morals. The writer of the article, Andrea Palpant Dilley (click here for a bio), aptly describes why the title was promising for Christians. She states that all too many believers have compromised Biblical standards regarding sex. Those believers include many young people but also some renowned Christians as well.

But unfortunately, the article, despite its basic message being correct, went downhill from there. Dilley never explains why many Christians have abandoned the Scriptures regarding their rules on sexual behavior.  Then there is the overstated claim on what the Scriptural standards on sex will produce. It isn't that following what the Scriptures say about sex never come with great rewards or escape from all sorts of great hazards. It is that holding to what the Scriptures say can come at a great price too. The statement about the lifestyles of transexuals and gays come with health problems in terms of emotions and physical health is made without citation or context. And I know people who are gay who don't have the weaknesses I have and have strengths I don't have.

Then there is the end that tells those of us who have held to Biblical sexual standards to be full of joy and pride as we hold up the banner of those standards. But most Christian who have ever successfully dealt with sexual temptations should not have pride. Why? It is because most of us have learned that when we see those who did not successfully battle sexual temptation, our first reaction is to say, 'but for the grace of God go I.'

Yes, there are earthly rewards for holding to what the Scriptures say, but it can also come with a heavy cross to bear. And why God saved us from falling to sexual temptations while He let others give in is a mysterious lesson in God's grace. And where there is God's grace, there is no pride because it is grace that saved us from those temptations, not our own will power.

In addition, it isn't just holding on to the Scriptural standards on sex that is important, it is how we hold on. For some, sexual repression has been what has kept  them from falling into sexual sin. But that repression often comes with a heavy price.

I'm afraid that though the subject of the above article is very important and that the article points to our need to follow the Scriptural standards on sex. And the title of the article is very promising. The rest of the article is very disappointing.

What Does Eschatology Got To Do With Social Justice?

Ed Stetzer (click here for a bio) and Gabriella Seifert (could not find a bio) that would respond to, or more accurately affirm the eschatology of Martin Luther King Jr (click here for the article). What the article really affirms is only one the King's personal missions, he had more than 1 mission in terms of his work and ministry. Thus, their article seems to be lacking in terms of understanding both the battles King waged against injustice. In addition, their article does not adequately cover the eschatalogical issues that were involved in King's views.

As far as understanding King's missions in life, Stetzer and Seifert only talked about the eradication of racism. Though eliminating racism was important to King, he fought 2 other battles: economic exploitation and militarism/war. And it is only when we include all of those issues together along with what it will take to adequately address those issues that we get to meet the real Martin Luther King Jr. For the real Martin Luther King Jr. was calling for moral and structural revolutions in America. The moral revolution was concerned with society turning from being 'thing-oriented,' where gadgets, profits, and property rights were counted as being more important than people, to being 'person-oriented'. The structural revolution stood against the materialism that came with Capitalism. In fact, King stated that Capitalism's materialism was just as evil as Communism's materialism though they were significantly different.

Consider the following two quotes from Martin Luther King Jr. (click here for the source):

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

and

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. n the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." 

In terms of eschatalogical issues, what is missing is how the eschatalogy one adopts limits the degree in which individual Christians and the Church should work for and expect justice and heaven to be realized on earth. Not that there are no Christians who think that we should not try to work for any justice. Rather, the issue is how much justice on earth should Christians work for and whether that work is to be done by the individual Christians alone or with the Church. Though I disagree with R. Scott Clark's approach to this issue, he does provide some useful distinctions on the different kinds of eschatology (click here for the source):

There are essentially three kinds of eschatologies: completely realized (e.g., full-preterism, Jesus has returned and this is the new heavens and the new earth); semi-realized (the dominant view among the Reformed and usually described as Amillennialism); and unrealized (or futurist; which would include most forms of chiliasm, premillennialism). Postmillennialism as we know it today has features that align it with the semi-realized and with the futurist views. It says that the Kingdom of God has been introduced into history but it also looks forward to an earthly golden age (prior to Christ’s return).

Having identified 3 kinds of eschatology, not to be confused with 4 schools of eschatology, Clark gives a mixed message in terms of how much the Church should be involved in bringing justice to earth. From the same previously cited article, Clark says the following:

We see modern versions of this over-realized eschatology in contemporary evangelical rhetoric about “social justice.” Some of them speak openly about bringing heaven to earth in ways that the apocalyptic Anabaptists would have understood entirely. We should not assume that such rhetoric is either biblical or Reformed.

Certainly Christians as individuals and even as groups should seek to approximate social and civil justice, insofar as lies within them. The Reformed do not share the Anabaptist eschatology, however. We expect both the church and the state to be an approximation, to reflect a semi-realized eschatology. This is not heaven. Social action cannot bring about heaven on earth. It cannot bring the Kingdom of God.

and:

Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God on the earth but the Kingdom is not to be found in social action, marches, or power politics. The visible, institutional manifestation of God’s kingdom is much more humble. It is more like Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on a donkey than it is Caesar entering Rome. Remember, the disciples frequently pestered Jesus about when he was going to institute a glorious, earthly kingdom (e.g., Mark 10:37; Acts 1:6). They did not understand. Jesus explained to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). They would not understand that until Pentecost, when Peter announced that Jesus was reigning now (see his sermon in Acts 2) from heaven, that he was arranging all things for the progress of the gospel. That progress, however, did not mean earthly glory. It meant persecution (Acts 7), martyrdom, and death. The visible, institutional manifestation of the Kingdom is the preaching of the gospel, the use of the two sacraments, and the use of church discipline (see Matt 16 and 18; 28:18–20).

Indeed, there is no evidence in Acts that the Apostles sought to bring heaven to earth except insofar as the ministry of Word, sacrament, and discipline brought the elect into contact with the realities of the new heavens and the new earth by anticipation (Acts 2:42). They wrote no petitions. They conducted no rallies. They chanted no slogans, even as their brothers and sisters (c. 65 AD) were arrested unjustly, covered with tar, and set on fire to cover up Nero’s failed urban renewal program.

It is important to read the previously cited article by Clark along with this article being linked to here. For though Clark does well in warning us against reducing the Gospel to a social gospel only, his rigidity in thought and excessive loyalty to his theological heroes from the past prevents from him borrowing anything from those whose eschatology is too faulty--that is whose eschatology carried expectations that were too great. And in comparing today's world with that of the New Testament Church, Clark's call on the Church to simply imitate what was done then assumes that there are no significant historical changes between then and now.

Certainly, King's eschatology would be considered faulty in Clark's eyes--and we should note that Stetzer and Siefert inadequately described King's eschatology. But does that mean that Christians should not have joined and worked with King and his movement?

Though we really talked more about Clark than Stetzer and Siefert, the point of these citations from Clark is to show that Stetzer and Siefert did an inadequate job in talking about King's eschatology just as they underrepresented King's work by reducing his mission to opposing racism--which ironically is the typical white American's view of King's work. And King and his work are too important to inadequately write about.


 

The Chalenge For Religiously Conservative Christians

In an ever changing world, we religiously conservative Christians face a monumental challenge for as long as we live. That challenge is to remain faithful while living in an ever changing world.

Why is that so challenging? It is challenging because our faith ties us to specific truths from the past. Those truths must be clinged to  if we are to maintain our ties with that past and our faith. At the same time, the world has been constantly changing since the time period from which those truths came from. Those changing times sometimes changes how the truths we hold must be lived out in the world.

For us religiously conservative Christians, we have often held to the truths of our faith in ways that seem to deny or dismiss the changes that have occurred in the world. Why would we deny or dismiss those changes? Because those changes demand that we do some things differently from what our past seems to have taught us. And we have fear that if we make too many changes, we will separate ourselves from the basic truths of our past.

So many of us religiously conservative Christians have relied too heavily on what a select number of past Christians have done and taught to both understand and respond to an ever changing world. And though such a response has not cut us off from the past, it has all too often cut us off from the present and being able to evangelize others.

This counter-productive approach to living in the present is part of the subject that Jeff Christopherson (click here for a very brief bio) wrote about in a recent Christianity Today article. Christopherson wrote about how we are to carry out the Christian missions today and his suggestion would not only address how we should carry out our missions, it addresses the challenges we religiously conservative Christians face in life.

But not only does Christopherson's article (click here for the article) help us in facing today's challenges, it shows a certain degree of self-awareness that many of us religiously conservative Christians have lacked. The key statements of Christopherson's article follow:

But the instinct to turn inward and backward is always a dead end. It's an instinct driven by fear, not by love. It's a selfishness that rallies its tribe toward a provincial self-preservation of its rights, not a missionary force that sacrifices its rights for a greater spiritual harvest. Inwards and backwards is the defensive position of a losing cause.

When identifies the instinct of the religiously conservative Christian as being inwards and backwards, he is talking about our over reliance on select sources from the past to understand and respond to today's world. The inward instinct refers to the heroes and teachers we choose to measure the world by. The backwards instinct refers to the time periods from which we choose our heroes. They are all past time periods. And here, he is not only referring to Biblical sources, he is referring to the heroes we choose from Church history. 

For Calvinists like me, those heroes would tend to include John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, the Westminster Divines, and so forth. For others, Martin Luther and those who contributed to the Augsburg Confession. Of course Augustine would be included by Catholics, those from the Reformed community, and conservative Lutherans.

Of course there are select heroes who might even come from the 20th century. But for the most part, those heroes of ours on whom we would refer to as our spiritual Jedi Masters come from a more distant past.

In contrast to looking inwards and backwards, Christopherson seems vague on the solution. For he says that to look inwards and backwards is to live in fear while the solution of looking forwards and outwards is to live in love. And to a point, he is absolutely correct. But what is missing is a lack of precision when referring to what it means to look forwards and outwards. Thus when he says the following, I'm afraid that his statements have already raised too many red flags that would prevent many religiously conservative Christians from benefiting from the great observations he has made about us religiously conservative Christians:

As I look at the challenges facing the church, I'm increasingly skeptical that our well-worn categories of liberalism and conservatism are a helpful distinction to describe faithfulness to Christ. This is the path marked by some in generations prior. The terminology and methodology that distinguished this path once seemed clear, but now it’s obscured by false dichotomies, harsh assumptions, critical stereotypes, and defunct methods. And this division that is splitting the world's political landscape has pervasive influence on the modern church.

Now if the liberalism and conservatism distinction refers strictly to political ideologies and parties, I would fully agree. But if the distinction also includes liberal and conservative theologies, then I have to object. I have to object because too much of theological liberalism denies the basic tenets of religiously conservative Christianity. And to deny those tenets is to cut ourselves off from the past, from the faith.

Christopherson's article provides an excellent mirror in which many of us religiously conservative Christians should stare into. We need to become more self-aware of our over reliance on the past. But I think he would do better if instead of seeming to offer an exclusive-or choice between looking  inwards and backwards vs looking forwards and outwards, he would challenge us to do both by balancing our looking inwards and backwards with looking forwards and outwards. For the problem that has plagued many of us religiously conservative Christians has always been an over reliance on learning from the select heroes from the past, not a reliance on them per se. 

We religiously conservative Christians will always need to look somewhat inward and backwards. That is because it is looking inwards and backwards that keeps us anchored to the truths of our faith. And thus looking inwards and backwards helps prevent us from separating ourselves from the truth. We simply need to balance that inwards and backwards gaze with one that also looks forwards and outwards. Balancing those two approaches can prove to be very difficult. But it is the only way for us religiously conservative Christians to meet the challenge of remaining faithful while being able to share the Gospel in an ever changing world.




 

The Snaglepuss Solution For A Sexually Apocalyptic World

To summarize Rod Dreher (click here for bio), the only hope that American Christianity has in passing down its traditions, especially those about the family, in today's sexually apocalyptic world is for Christians to find ways to exit, stage left, that world in groups that become communities. Why? It is because, in his opinion, certain Christian traditions can no longer survive today's world because Christians have lost the culture war to an aggressive sexual depravity. And in talking about the state of today's culture, Dreher is not mimicking Chicken Little in saying that the sky is falling; rather, he is saying that the sky has fallen and that the fallout will destroy Christianity and the Christian family. Therefore, we Christians have to find ways of living in tight-knit communities in order to preserve our faith and family life for the future.

Dreher's solution is what he has called the Benedict Option and he wrote about it on more than one occasion. One such occasion is in a Christianity Today article (click here for the article). And though it would be good to review the whole article, time does not permit that. Rather, this blog will examine Dreher's analysis of today and take an initial look at his proposed solution.

The idea that the sexual values taught and practiced in American culture today are beyond the pale have become much more widely accepted by religiously conservative Christians especially since the Obergefell decision. The belief that we Christians have lost a fiercely fought culture war to an unrelenting enemy that takes no prisoners is now popular among many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians. Dreher looks at the conflict between the Christian view of sex and our culture's view as two gunfighters saying to each other that 'this town isn't big enough for the both of us.' At least that is his perception. And we have to realize that there is some evidence for this perception. 

For one thing, Christianity use to have a degree of dominance over our culture's sexual values. Earlier in our nation's history, certain sexual practices warranted incarceration or even the death penalty.  Eventually the death penalty was phased out, but I remember when homosexuality, for example, was punished as a crime. In fact, it was not too long ago when certain sexual practices were criminalized even when practiced by heterosexual couples. Starting with the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s and culminating in the legal recognition of certain rights for the LGBT community, that dominance was lost. And thus, the following paragraph from Dreher's article is confusing for it seems to lack self-awareness.

Today, Christians who hold to the biblical teaching about sex and marriage have the same status in culture and, increasingly, in law, as racists. The culture war that began with the sexual revolution in the 1960s has now ended in defeat for Christian conservatives. The cultural left—which is to say, the American mainstream—has no intention of living in postwar peace. It is pressing forward with a harsh, relentless occupation, one that is aided by the cluelessness of Christians who don’t understand what’s happening.

The confusion is seen in the parts where Christians are seen as persecuted while the 'cultural left' is portrayed as being overly aggressive. For how is it that history could not paint the LGBT community as victims and Christians as being the uuncompromisingly aggressive ones? And even now, when legal action is taken against or disdain shown for taking a "Christian position" on sexual issues, it is when the rights of the LGBT community are being threatened by Christians.

In fact, to claim that we have had a culture war starting with the Sexual Revolution means that we have viewed ourselves as being in a battle to conquer an enemy. In fact, it wasn't until the Obergefell decision when many of us Christians acknowledged that we had lost the war. And even now, some Christians are battling to pass laws that would take away the rights gained by those in the LGBT community.  So when Dreher complains that the cultural left refuses to live in a postwar peace,  he demonstrates the self-awareness of a bull in a china shop.

We also have to note that in looking at his proposed solution, why does it take the Sexual Revolution to make us want to exit from society? Yes, Dreher acknowledges the problems that the materialism of our culture can cause. And yet for Dreher, culture is irrevocably lost not to materialism or during slavery, Jim Crow, the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from the land, or through the wars and interventions it has taken to build and maintain our empire. Instead, our culture is without hope because its sexual values have changed.

Now when we look at Dreher's solution, we find that it is not based on any New Testament example. For the worst case New Testament scenario was in Corinth and yet the Corinthians were never encouraged to leave their culture in order to protect themselves. Rather, they were to live out their faith in a community of believers so that they could live righteously as a witness to their culture by being a part of the culture.

But something else could be said. Dreher's Benedict Option demonstrates an immaturity that revolves around self-absorption. For what it is really saying is that we Christians should take our toys and go home because we lost a game. Thus, we will play with our toys by ourselves rather than sharing with others because we can't tolerate not winning.

However, there is one point where we should give Dreher his due. Unbiblical sex is a very strong temptation. And we do need each other to battle that temptation. But there are more issues than just our own self control here. How we will share society with others is one such issue. And we cannot afford to take our own weaknesses out on our culture. We can't afford to because, just like falling to temptation, it brings dishonor to the Gospel.

The Problem With The Current Desire For Racial Reconcilation

The most recent police shootings of Black men along with the shooting of a number of Dallas police officers as well as the shooting of a Missouri officer and a Georgia officer has inspired many a person to review their own perspective on race, gun laws, and the police. And it is good that we would review any of our perspectives let alone our perspectives on these issues. However, if we are honest about ourselves, the most recent shooting events of both Black men and police officers have given many of us a glimpse of the abyss, a place where there is an endless cycle of repression by the authorities resulting in retaliation. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict comes to mind here.

So we are reviewing one of many Christian articles on racial reconciliation. And it seems that many of them have one trait, which in reality is a flaw. That flaw is to try to contribute to racial reconciliation by focusing solely on racial discord. Currently I am listening to such a podcast that quotes Martin Luther King on racism without quoting him on other subjects that he linked to racism.

The article being reviewed here is by Mark Galli (click here for a bio) called The Burden And Promise Of Racial Reconciliation (click here for the article). Now this article references another article to which I did not have full access to. However, by what could be read from both articles, the prospect of racial reconciliation is both restricted to just racial issues and is Christianized. And the problem with Christianizing the solution to racial reconciliation is that it provides no such solution to a secular world that rightfully clings to religious freedom along with the fact that part of Christianizing the solution means that we must wait for the Judgment Day before we can expect any significant degree of relief from the plague of racism.

With that being said, the article made one point that is never made enough times. That point is that the founding of our nation was based on racism. In our nation's case, that racism has been against both Blacks and Native Americans.

Yes, the article also talked about both exposing and righting some wrongs. But in the end, a key component to racial reconciliation  is never mentioned though it was mentioned a number of times by everyone's favorite race reconciler: Martin Luther King Jr. In the end, the initial steps that lead to racial reconciliation include following the the money. Consider the following quote my King as he spoke out against the Vietnam War (click here).

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

Here, we should first note that we cannot solve our problem with racism by focusing on racism alone. Racism, materialism, and militarism are also referred to as racism, economic exploitation, and war are triplets, in another speech (click here) are linked together. We should note that materialism and economic exploitation are two sides of a multiple sided object as is war and militarism.

The second thing we should note is that, according to King, racism cannot be solved using a divide and conquer approach. We just cannot solve racism by focusing on it at the exclusion of the other evils. And this is where the current discussions, especially those coming from religiously conservative Christians, fall short and perhaps with good reason. To cure racism, according to King, we need to change our economic system to one that stresses sharing and cooperation as much as it promotes individualism. So we need a new economic system to cure racism (see the speech that used the term 'economic exploitation' in place of the term 'materialism'). We also need to reduce, if not eliminate,  our reliance on war and  militarism.

 In the Vietnam speech, King identifies the general ethic society must adapt in order to eliminate racism. That general ethic consists of society counting people as being more valuable than things like gadgets, profits, and property rights. When we put the two speeches together, we not only are told that we must restructure our society's economic system, society must change its values. But unlike the Christianized solutions to facilitate racial reconciliation, King presents us with civic ethic that infringes on nobody's religious rights unless they are worshipers of Ayn Rand.

Unfortunately, many pretenders will sanctimoniously quote King on how we can eliminate racism. And they do so never having fully read him. Because if they had read him, they would have realized that, according to him, we must address the evils of racism, materialism/poverty, and war/militarism together in order to just make a significant dent in one of them. In addition, not all of the changes needed to reduce racism in this nation will be welcomed changes. To change from Capitalism will result in disrupting the financial and ideological lives of many who passionately embrace a comfortable lifestyle. Why? Because unless one changes one's economic system, the hoarding of resources and the pursuit of the self will only ensure what the statistics continue to say: that wealth disparity reigns over the economic lives of the races and thus at least one race will always feel it is being short-changed by society and its systems (click here). The fruit most often produced by a continuing of such disparities is resentment. And without eliminating race-based resentment, there can be not significant reduction in racism.

After staring into the abyss, many of us better see the need for us to put a major dent into racism. But unless we learn King's perspective on how to battle racism, we will not only fail to battle racism, we will be sabotaging our own efforts. This article fails to view racism from King's perspective and thus it fails in adequately addressing the subject.

Are American Conservative Christians The Bull In The China Shop?

The article to be reviewed this week was written by Ed Stetzer in response to the attack on our troops in Chattanooga, Tennessee by a Muslim. His article is entitled, 3 Things Christians Should Consider In Light Of Radical Islam (click here).

The three things Stetzer is focussing on are the ways Christians should respond to their friendly, neighborhood Muslims. These responses are Biblical for the most part. They consist of the reminder that we must love all of our neighbors, we must pray for all of our enemies, and we must recognize religious liberty for all while acknowledging that there is violent resistance to this liberty particularly in countries that are predominantly Muslim. Of these three suggested responses, the first two are very legitimate and must be taken seriously. The third one is somewhat debatable, but that is not what we will take issue with here.

The Stetzer comment that concerns this blogpost the most is the one that says:

The West is at the front end of what will almost certainly be a multi-decadal war against radical Islamism. We saw so again this week, as violence marred Chattanooga, TN.
 

 Stetzer's view that we have just begun a conflict with radical Islam is troublesome for two reasons. The first reason is that many would place the front end of this conflict on day of the 9-11 attacks. Was not Bin Laden and Al-Qaida considered to be representatives of radical Islam back then? That was my impression. And if that is the case, though calling this conflict multi-decadal would be correct, calling our current position in this conflict with Radical Islam the front en should trouble a lot of Americans.

But Americans are not the only ones who should be troubled by the above quote. That is because the West, consisting of America and parts of Europe, has been intervening in the Middle East and trying to control the oil resources there since before WW II.  America started its Middle East interventions in 1953 by teaming up with Great Britain to overthrow Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister. In his place, we installed a leader who was friendly to Western business interests. But this leader, the Shah as he was called, acted as tyrant to dissidents within his own country and he tried to westernize the nation against the wishes of many Muslims back then. His harsh reign led to an overthrow in 1979 and his replacement, the Ayatollah Khomeini, was recognized as the radical
Muslim of his day. 

In fact, one of reasons why we supported Iraq's brutal dictator Saddam Hussein for 10 years was so that Hussein could offset any threat Khomeini could pose to our interests in that region of the world. But not only did we support the Shah and Hussein, our unbalanced support of Israel has led to horrible persecution of Palestinian Christians and Muslims. In fact, the kind of support we've given Israel along with our support of Middle East dictators like the Shah and Hussein were two reasons cited by Bin Laden for why Al-Qaida attacked us on 9-11. Our troops sent to Lebanon and our previous day shelling of Hezbollah positions led to the bombing of the marine barracks in 1983. And we could also mention the fact that we supported terrorists like Bin Laden provided that the enemy was a Soviet Union backed government in Afghanistan.

So though Stetzer is correct in stating that our current conflict with Radical Islam could last for decades, his approximation of the conflict's beginning is very questionable. For us, the conflict always starts with what has happened to us. For Stetzer, the conflict with Radical Islam has started close to the time of the attacks against the marines on our soil. But his anticipation of the future, like the anticipation possessed by many of my religiously conservative Christians about our future because of the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage shows a gross insensitivity to the pains we've caused. For just as those from the LGBT community have dealt with decades, if not centuries, of marginalization due to Christian privilege in society, so many Muslims have suffered either directly or indirectly for decades from American interventions in the Middle East. Our interventions have caused some Muslims to become radicalized. Many more Muslims would say that the battle with the West started way before 9-11. Only we American Christians could never accept that because we have acted like a Bull in a china shop. Just as the bull is unaware of the brokenness he has caused, so many of us religiously Conservative Christians blind to the pain, caused by the actions of our nation to Muslims because of how we have deemed them as not being worthy of our consideration.





t


References

1. http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2015/july/3-things-christians-should-consider-in-light-of-radical-isl.html
2. http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2014/04/04/know-your-southern-baptists-ed-stetzer/

What The Frack Is Going On

In a Christianity Today article, Fracking Isn't A Four-Letter Word, Chris Horst wants to correct the image of fracking which has been sullied by films like Gasland and Promise Land. These films have both disturbed the American public and made some associated with fracking apprehensive in admitting their connections to the oil industry. Since Horst has friends in the industry and has admiration for past Christians who have had ties to this industry, he wrote this article to persuade Christians to rethink their previously conceived notions and consider supporting fracking.

In defending fracking, Horst gives a few reasons why the benefits of the practice outweigh the costs. These benefits revolve around economics and nationalism. But such is not the concern of this blog because in giving a Christian defense of this practice, we should first determine the morality of the practice both in principle and its current implementations. The reason for the distinction here is that if an energy company is doing something right in the wrong way, then correction involves changing how the energy company does its work. However, if the practice itself is in question, then tweaking how fracking is implemented becomes moot. In that case, Christians must challenge the practice of fracking itself.

While Horst spends most of his time itemizing the benefits of fracking, he provides little to no information regarding the problems of fracking. The quote below consists of the attention he paid to the problems with fracking

Experts debate whether fracking can lead to earthquakes, though scientists at the United States Geological Survey said there is no connection. Some suggest fracking contaminates drinking water, though critics acknowledge their fears are due to suspicions, not hard evidence. The Department of Energy study released recently found no evidence that fracking contaminates groundwater. We need to weigh these potential risks against fracking's alternatives. Despite the risks, I believe the case for fracking is stronger than the case against it. As Jeffrey Greenberg, geology professor at Wheaton College, said, "Do it and do it carefully if all reasonable and pertinent variables are considered honestly. Fracking isn't perfectly safe, like living itself. It is still a good option under the right circumstances."

The earthquake risk aside, Horst's comment regarding the contamination of drinking water as being the sole source of pollution is rather disingenuous. Why? First, the article he links links here mentions the fracking chemicals as being the only contaminant that could harm our water . Second, contaminated water is listed as the only resource that is polluted. And third, pollution is not the only environmental hazard associated with fracking. 

Before addressing the first reason mentioned above, we should note that the claim that fracking has never contaminated groundwater is false. We can determine this by a relatively pro-fracking article in Popular Mechanics (click here). We should also include the recent explosion in Pennsylvania of a Chevron well (click here and there). What we should note is that such pollution has occurred through accidents. And though accidents are suppose to be aberrant to the practice of fracking itself, that they have occurred provides an indicator of the future and what we can expect if fracking continues on its present course.

Mark Schrope, writing for Environment Yale, lists several ways by which ground water can be contaminated by accident-free fracking (click here). It is possible that cracks made by fracking can connect with already existing cracks above the fracking to provide passageways for both the chemicals and methane gas to migrate upwards toward our water supplies. Here we should note that the article Horst had cited made the claim solely about pollution from fracking chemicals. The article stated that it was still not determined whether the higher methane levels in water around drilling sites were due to fracking. But back to the chemicals, the article mentioned something that Horst did not. Quoting a Duke scientist, the article stated that one could not rule out the leakage of chemicals into groundwater from one case as Horst did. 

But regardless of the above hypothesis, what is known is that improper installation of a well can cause a leakage of the chemicals used or methane and this can contaminate our water. Also, the transporting and handling of fluids either used in or are produced by fracking can spill into the ground water. There have been accidents like this transporting oil including tar sands oil. And considering the amount of liquid used during each instance of fracking, which will be covered later, the risk becomes significant.

But drilling is not the only time where contamination of ground water can occur according to Schrope. As time goes on and the concrete casings and pipes deteriorate, fluids and methane can leak upwards and can even cause a geyser as what happened in a Pennsylvania well. Considering that Pennsylvania has over 100,000 abandoned oil and gas wells, this does not bode well for adding more. We might ask at what point is it no longer feasible for energy companies to guarantee that they can monitor and maintain obsolete wells in order to prevent future leaks.

Schrope reports on a Duke University study that found higher levels of methane in New York and Pennsylvania water wells that are near fracking operations. And in some cases, the chemical makeup of the methane indicated that the methane was from deeper levels of shale rather than from shallower levels. All of this almost more than indicates that Horst's description of water supplies being contaminated by fracking as being merely "suspicious" as being grossly understated.

We should note that ground water is not the only target of pollution in fracking. There is the air pollution that comes with the normal practice of fracking. Because of the amount of water and chemicals need for each incidence of fracking, up to 2,000 tanker trucks might be used and this will be needed up to 20 times per well according to Joe Hoffman (click here).  With the fracking operation and leaking of methane gas, a number of pollutants are either released in the air in quantities that would normally not be released. Hoffman cites an Associated Press report in stating that the air pollution near drilling sites in Wyoming can produce worse ozone levels than in Los Angeles at its worse and much higher than what is deemed healthy by the EPA (click here). 

In addition, Hoffman cites another report predicting that Montana will see a 310% increase in Nitrogen Oxide (click here). In addition, Hoffman cites a report from the National Institute For Occupational Safety that stated that the sites it collected information for showed that the amount of crystalline silica, a kind of sand which can cause the incurable lung disease, silicosis, in the air was greater than what health standards permit (click here).  

There is also a problem with polluted soil. Hoffman cites an Associated Press report telling about the vast increase in chemically polluted soil, which was a result from drilling, over a 10 year period (click here). Air pollution is then increased from the trucking needed to dispose of contaminated soil.

In addition, the amount of water needed to conduct a frack can, according to the context of the location from which water is drawn, cause additional problems. Hoffman reports that each well can require up to 8 million gallons of water let alone the water needed to produce 40,000 gallons of chemicals. Certainly, some areas can afford to produce this water but it has become a source of concern in those areas that are suffering from drought (click here). 

So what is the point here? The point is that Horst spends so much time, space, and energy in focusing on the advantages and benefits of fracking that his article in Christianity Today has almost become dishonest concerning the tradeoffs and what is required in the future if we are to continue with fracking today.

Schrope quotes Duke University environmental scientist Robert Jackson's concern of not whether fracking can be done safely, but whether it will be done safely. If we look at the track record of our energy producers, such a question is what Horst should be asking here. The corruption that preceded and the lack of resolution that followed BP's oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, the problems with transporting and using tar sands oil, the host of environmental and health related problems that come with mountain top removal to mine coal all point to a disturbing trend that extracting energy resources is not being done conscientiously in enough cases. Consider the number of oil drilling spills, over 1,000, that occurred in 2011 alone and this did not include the number of unreported illegal dumping of pollutants. (click here). Also consider some of the legal loopholes given to energy producing companies.

Towards the end of Chris Horst's Christianity Today article on fracking, he writes:

Christians have a rich history in the oil and gas industry, and Howard Pew is perhaps the most prominent Christian to work in it. The Pew family founded Sun Oil—today known as Sunoco, a Fortune 100 company. Compelled by their Christian faith, the Pew Family became a major force in supporting the abolition of slavery and advancement of Christianity.

The above should be trusted because since the days of Constantine, Christianity has often aligned itself with those who have wealth and power. And this is especially true with many of today's American Conservative Christians. They major in emphasizing personal holiness and the need to repent from individual sins, but they seem to have skipped most, if not all, classes that lectured on social sins and corporate responsibility. Horst's one-sided persuasive article does the same here. The downside that he scantily refers to in the abstract is lost when he tells us to consider the benefits of fracking. And if he does that with the general public in articles the this one in Christianity Today,  the what is his message to the workers and residents who must live with the negative consequences of fracking and other means of extracting energy resources?

So the question we must raise with Horst and others like him is not necessarily whether we should support fracking. The question is, should demand that our government holds energy companies accountable for the means by which they extract energy resources? And perhaps we should step back from supporting fracking until we get an answer.