Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For March 6, 2024

Feb 10

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the part of Trueman's article from First Things quoted in this Heidelblog post. This article is about whether Christians can attend same-sex weddings.

Trueman's full article can be found at the link below:

    https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/01/can-christians-attend-gay-weddings

The question I want to ask everyone who shares Carl's opinion on Christians attending same-sex weddings is this: Can a Christian attend the worship service of another religion simply as an observer? After all, there are bound to be things said in that worship service that a believer should not just object to, but speak out against. And so to rephrase the question, can a believer quietly attend the worship service of another religion as an observer?

The real issue in us attending a same-sex wedding is whether or not we are condoning the union that is being created by the wedding ceremony. If we are not condoning it and, because of adequate communication, our objections to such a wedding are made known, why can't we attend such a wedding either as an observer or for personal reasons?

This idea of an unbiblical wedding as mocking Christ is a manipulative statement. It is there to stir the anger in any red-blooded American Christian into action. After all, how many sins do not mock God which we are not told to react to? And how are our angry responses going to compare with how God responds? In fact, they might interfere with God's response because He often gives people who sin time to repent. Do we realize how much God treats us that way and will treat us that way for as long as we live on earth? And so when Trueman says that a same-sex marriage mocks Christ, is he saying that so that we either will pray for their repentance or come to God's defense by lashing out at the mockers? And, btw, does God really need us to defend Him?

Isn't it enough for us to respond to the LGBT community by preaching the Gospel in ways that bear the fruit of the Spirit? Or does God need us to try to do more than what the Gospel can do?

Here is the real issue for us religiously conservative Christians. Too many of us have been waging war against the LGBT community because they are starting to gain an equal status with us in society. And not only do we object to that, we are seriously offended because we consider them to be moral lepers. We are offended because our place in society is now going to those whom we consider to be our moral inferiors. And all they want is to be equal to us in society.

It isn't that homosexuality and transgenderism are not sins; they certainly are sins. The question is, how does the New Testament want us to share society with unbelievers. Should we seek to share society with unbelievers, including the LGBT community, as equals, or should we seek a privileged place of supremacy over unbelievers, including the LGBT community, in society because we believe that we are morally superior to them? Please realize that I am not making the claim that we are morally superior to unbelievers. And because we are all sinners and because of what the New Testament says, I believe that we religiously conservative Christians must and should share society with unbelievers, including the LGBT community, as equals.

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

Feb 15

To R. Scott Clark and his article that reviews gambling from the perspective of the Reformed Traditions. This article was posted in Heidelblog.

The weakness of the Reformed confessions is that they tend to do what in football use to call a late hit: piling on. In essence, these confessions attribute to the prohibition implied by a commandment actions and practices that does not always relate to the commandment. Gambling is not necessarily stealing. And not all gambling is done for selfish reasons. There is a certain social gambling that occurs in some card games such as when the winnings and losses are insignificant and the playing of the game is mostly for social reasons. The same can be said of playing a state lottery with coworkers. In addition, others are benefiting when one plays a state lottery.

We should also note that there is a form of gambling that is older than the gaming we see today, but it is not only legal, itis deemed to be irresponsible by some not to gamble in this way. That is investing in the Stock Market. But when investments are made purely for the sake of its ROI, how is that different than sports betting? This is especially true when one is not buying originally issued stocks. In that case, those investing in the Stock Market purely for its  ROI are like the people whom Martin Luther King Jr described below:

'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."'

What King stated shows the real problem with most gambling. That is where there is the investment of funds solely for selfish gain without regard for others who might be affected. And here, the idea of vocation stands in stark contrast many forms of gambling including playing the Stock Market. That is because with vocation, one is contributing to others through one's work.

We should note that what drives the wrongful forms of gambling is what also drives the Consumer economy in which we live: making decisions solely for selfish reasons. The idea that one's personal significance is determined mostly by what one consumes and how one consumes it. That idea is not just like a virus that infects an individual, it is more like a virus that becomes a pandemic. It contributes to what King called a 'thing-oriented society.' And King warned us that unless we switch from being a thing-oriented society to being a 'person-oriented society,' we will never rid ourselves of the inseparable triplets of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism.

Thus we can see from King's view that investments made purely for the sake of its ROI, that such investments are a failure to love one's neighbor. And because investments are also a form of gambling, the same can be said of many, if not most, forms of gambling. Such gambling is a failure to love one's neighbor as themselves. And that is true not necessarily because gambling steals from one's neighbor, but it is because practicing such gambling in lieu of a job, doing works of mercy, or giving to those in need is a failure to be concerned about another person's welfare.

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

March 3

To Dermont Quinn and his article that states that religion should not longer be privatized by the government. Instead, religion, the right religion of the Roman Church, should have a favorite place in directing society. This article was originally posted in 2013 and has been reposted in the Imaginative Conservative.

Christendom, the time period when religion was imposed on others rather than privatized, had its reign and it was not short enough. Religious wars with their atrocities, inquisitions, imperialism, colonialism, and ethnic cleansings are forever part of its legacy. Another part of its legacy was its strong tendency for the predominant branch of the Church in a given nation to side with wealth and power which resulted in the Church supporting economic exploitation and social injustices in those nations. The pre-revolutionary times of France and Spain where that branch was the Roman Church and of Russia where that branch was the Orthodox Church provide such examples. Here in America, that legacy lives on in the Evangelical side of the Protestant branch that sides with wealth.

In a world where we overuse bipolar thinking, there is an alternative to either imposing or privatizing religion. That alternative can be seen in the work and writings of Martin Luther King Jr and the SCLC. They worked for equal rights for all who were oppressed because of their race and economic class rather than for a privileged position for the Church in society. And because of that, King showed how religion could enter the public square without it being imposed on others.

For most of world history, we have lived in an authoritarian world. That authoritarianism came in two flavors: secular and religious. For perhaps just over a century the world has been flirting with democracy with equality world without ever having fully embraced it. But lately, because democracy with equality has been allowing too many different people into the equality mix, there has been an emergence of authoritarian ethnocratic movements both here and in Europe. Those movements serve as a major counter-revolutionary challenge to democracy with equality. 

The above article supports its own specific version of a Christian authoritarian ethnocratic movement. In fact, in America and some Eastern European countries, the authoritarian ethnocratic movement revolves around religion. In Western Europe, it revolves around race and national origin. 

The call of these authoritarian ethnocratic movements is a call to return to a time when nations were more ethnically homogeneous than they are today. The belief is that an adequate level of similarity in the nations, especially the appropriate religious one, would allow each nation to function better because there would be more unity and less internal strife. 

Unfortunately, the current call by these authoritarian ethnocratic movements is a call to return the world to the past, to its pre-WW I times. And there is every reason in history to believe that if we did return to that past, we would see history repeating itself

 

You're In Seminary Now To Study Church And State, Part 2

This article is a continuation of last Friday's article. It is a reaction to a seminary lecture by Kevin DeYoung on the relationship between Church and State. A link to DeYoung's personal description was given in the previous article (click here for the link to the lecture covered by today's article).

It is worthwhile for one to listen to the lecture. I will give a brief summary here and then react. That means that I will probably omit mentioning  some interesting details in the lecture.

DeYoung's lecture revolves around the views of James Bannerman, an 19th century Scottish Presbyterian. He first describes, using Bannerman's model,  4 different relationships that can exist between between the Church and the State, only here he will be referring to it as the relationship between Christianity and politics. DeYoung himself likes to combine insights from each of the 4 relationships described in his view of the relationship between the two. Those relationships consist of:

1. Christianity against politics
2. Christianity above politics
3. Christianity as politics
4. Christianity under politics

Christianity against politics is the view that a Christian should not be involved in politics because any such involvement is idolatrous. One weakness of that approach is that it promotes and ignorance of important issues of the day.

Christianity above politics is the view that Christians can read about politics but they must be careful not to conflate any particular ism or ideology with Christianity. DeYoung notes that the weakness with this approach is that one is tempted to see equal value and the same level of contributions to the world from all isms and ideology. DeYoung used capitalism and Marxism as his examples in noting the weakness of this approach.

Christian as politics is the view that there is a conflation between  Christianity and country or Christianity and an ideology or ism. Examples of this view come from both the Left and the Right, according to DeYoung. The problem is that there is no room left for one's judgment on the different views that are identified as Christian.

Christianity under politics says that Christianity is the or part of the base for Western Civilization or the founding of America as a nation. The problem here lies in making Christianity the servant of promoting Western Civilization or the founding of America so that Christianity can only say what promotes the interests of Western Civilization or America.

After this, DeYoung goes into what Bannerman says are the distinctions between the Church and State while not cutting the cord between the two. It was well understood that Christianity used to provide public truth in how things were generally perceived. And how the State should maintain that public truth without favoring a particular denomination.

DeYoung states that our nation's Founding Fathers had that view of America. The view that says that Christianity provided the public truth of how to perceive things.  And that they also believed that the Republic could not survive unless the people were a religious people of the right religion without favoring any denomination.

And so though Church and State are different and independent, there are still ties between them which started from the founding of the nation. DeYoung describes the Establishment Principle and how Bannerman saw that playing out. The Establishment Principle states that the State must recognize that Christ is the head of all things and must promote Christianity. It can do so in various ways without violating the First Amendment, in the view of Bannerman and others.

All of that puts the Church in a crisis today because of the drastic change in public truth. In general, the public does not view Christianity as providing an explanation for the general state of things. And the question becomes how should the Church respond.

For the Christian, the answer to that question depends on the similarities and differences one sees between the Church and state along with the ties between them.

Now the following response does not require all of the details of the lecture to be listed. What should be noted here is that only a theological view of both the State and Church are seen as providing the grounds for any view regarding how the Church and State should relate. Here, no definition of democracy, since we regard our nation as a democratic republic, is considered in determining how the State and Church should relate.

Here I would like to include a quote from Jeff Halper on the difference between a democracy and what he considers to be an ethnocracy (see pg 74 from Halper's book, An Israeli In Palestine:Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel):

An ethnocracy is the opposite of a democracy, although it might incorporate some elements of democracy such as universal citizenship and elections. It arises when one particular group—the Jews in Israel, the Russians in Russia, the Protestants in pre-1972 Northern Ireland,  the whites in apartheid South Africa,  the Shi’ite Muslims of Iran, the Malay of Malaysia and, if they had their way, the white Christian fundamentalist in the US—seizes control of the government and the armed forces in order to enforce a regime of exclusive privilege over other groups in what is in fact a multi-ethic or multi-religious society. Ethnocracy, or ethno-nationalism, privileges ethnos over demos. whereby one’s ethnic affiliation, be it defined by race, descent, religion, language or national origin, takes precedence over citizenship in determining to whom a country actually “belongs.” Israel is referred to explicitly by its political leaders as a “Jewish Democracy.”

I would even use a looser definition of an ethnocracy than Halper does with the main point focusing on a given religion's degree of privilege in the nation. The point being is that when Bannerman, or DeYoung, or anyone else ascribes to any religion some level of privilege or degree of supremacy, the essential part of Democracy, which is equality, is lost. And so apologists and promoters for a special place for any religion have made themselves enemies of Democracy. 

The change in America's public truth has changed the status of Christianity and the Church in America. And except for those who belong to Christianity against politics group, this change in public truth has caused a crisis. And we don't know how to respond to the change. 

But there is another change that DeYoung seems not to have recognized. That with Christianity losing its place as providing the public truth for the nation, we have been switching from being an ethnocracy to some degree more towards being a Democracy. So we have to consider how will the Church be perceived if we seek to undo that change.

DeYoung spends quite a bit of time describing how Christianity served as a basis for the founding of America. That all of the Founding Fathers, according to DeYoung, believed that religion was a vital part of keeping the republic. That is because a republic requires a virtuous people and, according to some, being virtuous requires being religious, especially being religious in terms of the true religion: Christianity.

But in so doing, DeYoung overlooks the lack of virtue in an America that could be considered to be more Christian than it is today. In other words, DeYoung is glossing over a lot of history in talking about America's past. 

Just take his comments on the Founding Fathers and the founding of the nation for example. DeYoung doesn't mention why the Founding Fathers gathered to write The Constitution. The Founding Fathers gathered to write that document in response to Shays Rebellion and the widespread dissent over the economy at that time. 

Evidence pointing to that claim can be seen in Henry Knox's letter to George Washington which refers to the widespread dissent. In his letter, Knox speaks pejoratively about those who were rebelling while never mentioning that many of those who were rebelling were veterans of the Revolutionary War. In addition, the references to the Militia in The Constitution makes it clear that the Founding Fathers were looking to create a stronger central government than what the Articles of Confederation provided. After all, one of the purposes of the Militia was to put down insurrections.

Challenges to America's virtue from the past when Christianity provided the public truth for the nation rely on the various levels of white supremacy. Evidence for the reliance on white supremacy can be seen in the enslavement of Blacks and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans. And for almost the first 80 years of America's existence as a nation, only whites could become American citizens. After a brief respite from the oppression of Blacks provided by the aftermath of the Civil War and Reconstruction came the Jim Crow era. Native Americans were still being ethnically cleansed and, btw, women were subjugated during this whole time.

Even after the Civil Rights Movement, we still see quite a bit of evidence of systemic racism. And until recently, those in the LGBT community could be incarcerated for their practices.  So now the Church has to deal with the question of equality for that community without compromising Biblical standards of morality. So far, the Church has not handle that problem well. For here is the next place where the Church can be seen as an opponent to equality and, thus, Democracy.

In short, what DeYoung has not accounted for in the Church's place in America is what has turned off others to Christianity and unnecessarily created enemies of the Church and scars on the credibility of the Gospel: disillusionment. With so many injustices to account for while Christianity was seen as providing the public truth, is it any wonder that the public truth has changed vendors?

More could be said here. For example, how does the existence of corporate sins affect the relationship between the Church and State? With the existence of corporate sins practiced by the State and in society, doesn't the Church have a responsibility to, out of evangelism, call on the State and public to repent of such sins, while challenging its members not to participate in such sins?

What has been said in the questioning of DeYoung's approach shows the weakness of the approaches of many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians to the relationship between the Church and State. That weakness? It is myopic approach to the subject and not just by DeYoung in his lecture, but in many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians. The insularity of DeYoung's approach shows that perhaps the conservative Church is not yet ready to listen to those to whom the Church wants to preach and by whom the Church wants to be heard. Perhaps here, when talking about the relationship between Church and State, before seeking to restore Christianity's past role of providing the public truth, it should first practice the Golden Rule.

You're In Seminary Now To Study Church And State, Part 1

Instead of reviewing an article, we will be listening to a seminary lecture on the relationship between the Church and State. We will be listening to Kevin DeYoung (click here for a bio) as he lectures at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC.  The class that DeYoung is teaching here is Systematic Theology. Systematic Theology concerns itself with an organized approach to understanding  Christian doctrines.

The audio linked to in this post contains 2 lectures (click here for the lecture covered in this article). The lecture we are concerned with starts around the 1:11:14 mark. The lecture is an introduction to the relationship between the Church and State. It starts with identifying the mission of each one.

In that lecture, DeYoung first cites James Bannerman (click here for bio), a Scottish Reformed Theologian from the 1800s on what the mission of the Church is. Such is an important question when defining its relationship to the state so that we understand when the Church is trying to do too much and when it isn't doing enough in terms of how it relates to the State. Young then gives his own description of the mission of the Church. He states that the mission of the Church is to:

1. Lead people to believe in Christ as their Savior
2. Make disciples--which involves teaching them how to follow Christ
3. Start other churches

And so however the Church is to relate to the State, it must fit into the confines of the Church's mission otherwise the Church is either trying to do either too much or not enough. The mission of the State is to promote the well being of its citizens. And then the question becomes who belongs to the Church and who belongs to the State. Those who believe in Christ as their Savior and submit to the Church's leadership including its discipline belong to the Church. Those who belong to the State, or we could also say to society, includes those who belong  to the Church along with those who don't.

To offer some contrast here, DeYoung then provides the definitions of the Church and State as provided by Stephen Wolf who promotes Christian Nationalism. DeYoung states that Wolf believes that the Church is a 'colony of heaven' while the Christian nation provides a 'complete image of eternal life on earth.' This seems to make the Christian nation more revelatory of how God relates to us than the Church is suppose to.

In response to Wolf, DeYoung describes the Church as an embassy for God's people. This model of thought points out that Christians are in a foreign land and that the Church is there to protect believers in Christ and to promote their interests and welfare while they live in a foreign land

Where does all of this leave us? In terms of the mission of the Church, we need to know what is involved in helping people to become believers in Christ. But the Church is interested in more than just participating in people becoming believers, the Church is there to teach believers how to follow Christ throughout their lives. And that includes sending out believers so that they can start new churches.

But in all of this, there are two contextual questions we need to ask. First, what is involved with helping people become believers in and be disciples of Christ in the 21st century as compared to the 1st century? Second, what are people's place in the State now as compared to the Apostolic times?

The first question deals with both what we need to say to help people believe and how we should live as Christians so that our lives do not interfere with people's desire to listen to the Gospel. And unlike the 1st century when Christian life was more simple, Christians must either stand on the shoulders of or apologize and repent for how past believers have behaved. For we need to realize two truths here: 1) that once we call ourselves Christians, everything that we do or say as well as that which we refrain from doing or saying can effect the reputation of the Gospel; and 2) we all stumble in many ways. And we cannot over emphasize that 2nd part so that truth should scare each of us believers very much. For not only do we have to account for all that we do or say and all that we don't do or don't say, we have to account for the same from our spiritual ancestors.

That part of having to account for what our spiritual ancestors said and did as well as well as did not say or did not do is part of what complicates today's Christian efforts to share the Gospel with people. And just when we could adjust to that, there is another complicating factor: the people's relationship with the State.

In a more authoritarian state, the people's relationship to the State is more simple and clearly defined. But in a democracy, people's relationship with the state can become messy and unclear. That is because in a democracy, we participate in how the State makes decisions from the local level to the national level. And here, again, we must account for the successes and failures of our spiritual predecessors in terms of how they did and did not participate in the State. Their actions and inactions have given the Gospel and the Church a track record to run on, to run away from, or to clean up. And sometimes we must do that in order to get a person to even listen to the Gospel. 

But it isn't just our ancestors who have to worry here. Being in a participatory system like a democracy means that we more of share a measure of responsibility for the actions of the State that they did in Apostolic times.

Yes, in being accountable for the past, we are tempted to over compensate and over correct. That is where we need to remember the mission of the Church. But if we don't try enough to be accountable for the past, we fail by not saying and doing enough in terms of today's issues. Especially today's social justice issues.

We should note one other thing here. Politics and religion will always be deeply intertwined for as long as religion recognizes the importance of morals. Why? That  because much of politics is about morals especially when it is concerned with social justice.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 30, 2023

 Aug 26

To Heidelblog and John Vecchione for the portion of Vecchione's article on a Federal court decision to  block the Government from coercing big Tech to censor speech. I believe the speech being censored is concerned with ant-vax positions. In his decision, the Federal judge likened the government to a mob boss.

So some conservatives are celebrating both a court case in which misinformation and even disinformation on safety issues, such as the use of vaccines, can be protected free speech and states that prohibit CRT and other woke materials from being taught in schools because such materials do not promote patriotic views of history.. Of course, the mere content of the latter is regarded as indoctrination even though indoctrination is a teaching method, not content.

In the above case, anti-vax and possibly other wrong information that can endanger individuals and even the general public is counted as free speech. Perhaps, if the 5th Court was located in Germany, would it strike down and compare Germany's anti-Semitism laws to a mob boss dictating what could be said? The answer could tell us whether we conservatives are arguing for free speech or partisan speech.

Of course, we don't have to move the 5th District Court to Germany to find out. For we already see some conservatives celebrating the above ruling, which can still be reversed, while supporting Republican states that prohibit the teaching of CRT and other woke materials in public schools. Here we should note that a conservative state also tried to prohibit the teaching of CRT and woke materials in private businesses. And didn't Trump also interfere with, if not prohibit, private businesses that had federal contracts from teaching teaching their  employees CRT and other woke materials? And didn't the Trump Administration censor all references to climate change in the EPA and possibly some other agencies? And so it seems that, for some conservatives, only conservative speech can be protected as being free speech.

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

To William Bednarz and the posting of his article the denounced liberalism as being hegemonic and caused a denial of reality and thus an unworthy replacement for Christian Order over a nation when the Church holds sway over a nation. This article was posted in the Imaginative Conservative website.

Let me see if I understand Bednorz's point. Liberalism's exercise of power is hegemonic while Christianity's exercise of power is establishing the right order. And that is the case even though liberalism allows Christianity to exist and operate in society as an equal to other religious views, Christian order would force a Christian view of life on the unbelievers in society. 

Bednarz then seems to add that to infringe on the Church's duty to order society is to infringe on Christianity. But is that what Jesus taught in the Gospels or the Apostles taught in the Book of Acts or in the Epistles? And when we look at the history of Christendom, wasn't it Christian order than mandated religious wars, the enslavement of people, the ethnic cleansing of indigenous people, racism, religious persecution, the exploitation of countries and regions from other continents for their natural resources, imperialism and colonialism and colonialism?

So, again, why would he call it a 'liberal hegemony' when liberalism was embraced and followed and 'Christian order' when the Church was the dominant political power?

Is There A Christian Defense For Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Laws?

 In the 6-part docudrama series on intergalactic history, one of the lead protagonist gives us an insight into human behavior that is as profound as it is concise. That protagonist said

'Fear is the path to the dark side' 

 

That protagonist went onto explain the dynamics of his claim:

'Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering'

He then gives a prognosis for those who have given in to fear:

'Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you, it will'

And Obi-Wan's apprentice is evidence, not proof because one cannot prove by example in this case because our sample size is uncountable, to what the protagonist claimed about fear.

If the protagonist's prognosis is true, then we here, both in society and The Church, are in a heap of trouble. If the prognosis is true, then society is in a heap of trouble because a significant portion of a very influentially powerful segment of society has given in to fear of the rest of America. And if the prognosis is true, the Church is in even bigger trouble than society because a bigger percentage of its people belong those who have given in to fear.

Now the model of thought shown above is one way to analyze the article we are about to review. Another way is to look at the article from the perspective of a psychological look at authoritarianism. For example, the following is a list of those who are described as having an authoritarian personality type (click here for the source):

1. 'Blind allegiance to conventional beliefs about right and wrong'
2. 'Belief in aggression toward those who do not subscribe to conventional thinking, or who are different'
3. 'A negative view of people in general - i.e. the belief that people would all lie, cheat or steal if given the opportunity'
4. 'A need for strong leadership which displays uncompromising power'
5. 'A belief in simple answers and polemics - i.e. The media controls us all or The source of all our problems is the loss of morals these days'
6. 'Resistance to creative, dangerous ideas. A black and white worldview'
7. 'A tendency to project one's own feelings of inadequacy, rage and fear onto a scapegoated group'
8. 'A preoccupation with violence and sex'

First, I'll add a disclaimer. I am not diagnosing any one as having that personality type. But, we can say that the above criteria is an indicator of a person taking an authoritarian approach on a given set of issues. 

We should note two things about the following list. First, the study of the authoritarian personality started in around the 1930s and was a triggered by the rise of fascism in parts of Europe during that time. Second, regarding the first trait listed above, what is 'conventional' is relative because it depends on the circles, especially but not exclusively  the ideological and political ones, one belongs to.

So what is being reviewed today? The article is on how Christians should approve of Uganda's laws prohibiting homosexuality. Spoiler alert--no graphic descriptions will be used in this article. I might refer to parts of the text of the Uganda law prohibiting homosexuality and that article does contain graphic descriptions. But I will not include those descriptions in this article But our focus here will be elsewhere.

On the American Reformer website (click here for the website), there is an article by an anonymous contributor who goes by the pen name of 'PhiloTheos' (the literal meaning from the Greek is 'loves God.'). His/her, though I am guessing that it is a his, article not only supports Uganda's latest laws prohibiting homosexuality, it claims that all Christians should also support such laws (click here for the article). To make his/her points, the writer strongly takes a fellow Christian, Russell Moore,  to task for criticizing Uganda's law and trying to distance that law from Christianity (click here for his article). 

So what this article will do is to look at the descriptions of homosexuality and those, like Moore, who oppose the Ugandan law in the light of what was cited above.

First, here are some of the descriptions of homosexuality in PhiloTheos's article:

1. immoral and a threat to society
2. a 'living death'
3. same-sex marriage is a 'metaphysical impossibility'
4. wicked
5. an 'egregious sin' 
6. destroys families
7. leads to other degenerate sins in society
8. because homosexuality 'shrivels' the souls of those in the nation, it leads to tyranny
9. homosexuality is against the traditional values and morals of our nation

Now let's read what PhiloTheos has to say about Moore and others who have or would oppose anti-homosexual legislation:

1. Moore bitterly attacked the Ugandan law
2. Moore does not know what he is talking about when he refers to separation of church and state when arguing against anti-homosexual laws
3. Moore is riding on the gay ship
4. those who oppose the Ugandan law are now part of the gay cult
5. SCOTUS Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority view in the Obergefell decision, is an agent of the modern Libertarian and Gay regime
6. SCOTUS Justice Kennedy us a vanguard for the post-communistic Global American Empire (GAE)
7. the GAE forces LGBT ideology on nations using bullying tactics
8. GAE enforces gay colonialism

The above are just some sample views from the article being reviewed. And the question being posed by this article is how well are the views from the representative of the Christian faith. Or, are these views Christian views that have been contaminated by fear and an authoritarian approach to the subject?

The first issue to tackle is to judge how well do the claims made about homosexuality in the article agree with what is said in the New Testament. We should note here that perhaps the best part of the New Testament to read to evaluate what was written in the article is Romans 1:18-28 (click here for the passage). 

Here we should note that Paul is not gentle when talking about homosexuality. In the Romans passage he says that because people worshiped and served the creation instead of the creator, God gave people over to shameful desires that go against nature as God designed it. And so homosexuality is one of the shameful desires that God gave some men and some women up to.

But we should notice something else here. Just as homosexuality is against nature as God intended it, it should be no surprise to see homosexuality outside of the Church. And shouldn't that play a role in how we regard and treat homosexuals in society? We should also note here that in terms of shock, I Corinthians 5 contains a heterosexual sin that is so shocking to Paul that he states that it is not even tolerated by the pagan unbelievers in Corinth--and that is really saying something.

We should also note  Romans 2:1ff warns those who believe in God not to judge those who commit homosexuality and the other sins listed in the rest of Romans 1. Why was that? It was specifically because those who would be doing the judging commit, generally speaking, the same sins as those whose sins are listed in Romans 1.

Going back to I Corinthians 5, verses 12 and 13 tell us something about Paul's concern for sexual purity in society: he has none. Paul is concerned solely about sexual purity in the Church. In the expelling of a person for sexual immorality from the Church, Paul is describing their situation as being unprotected from society because, for the time being, they are no longer in the Church. And that says something about what Paul expected from society.

While the writer of the American Reformer article cites Romans 13 as justification for laws like Uganda's anti-homosexual law because Paul described the government as having a sword to punish those who do evil and reward those who do good. The good and evil that Paul says the government should respond to were never explicitly defined.

Let's be clear here, Paul does describe homosexuality as a serious sin that merits eternal condemnation. But the subject of the article being reviewed is about how the state and society should regard and treat homosexuality. And perhaps I am blind but I see the writer of the article being reviewed being more influenced by other factors than by the New Testament when he writes to not only support the Ugandan law, but claims that all Christians should support it too.

Now let's look at whether PhiloTheos's reaction to those who do or would oppose the Ugandan law is at least partially consistent with the Scriptures. Note, like his/her reaction to homosexuality, PhiloTheos speaks in extremes. He says that Moore is basically on board with the gay agenda, whatever that would be, and that SCOTUS Justice Anthony Kennedy is part of a Neo-colonial effort to make nations submit to the GAE and force nations into accept homosexuality.

But let's look at that more closely. If Moore is a part of such an effort, why doesn't he tell the Church to pronounce that homosexuality is no longer a sin? Moore is very orthodox regarding sexuality. He sees homosexuality as a sin that must be repented of. Is such a belief about homosexuality part of the gay agenda? Likewise, is the belief that homosexuals should be treated as equals in society, which would include the legalization of same-sex marriage, mean that Justice Kennedy is no longer just a SCOTUS justice, he is part of a global effort to control and even bully nations into joining not just the GAE, but a global, neo-colonial effort to impose the LGBT ideology and agenda on nations? Again, is PhiloTheos reading the situation right or has hyperbole been injected into his assessment through either fear or a preference for authoritarianism?

Perhaps we should take a look at one more facet here. When PhiloTheos describes homosexuality as being a threat to traditional marriage, isn't he really saying that the lack of conformity is an attack on tradition?  And yet, isn't it people from the Christian community, like PhiloTheos, who wrote the article being reviewed here, who is trying to prohibit homosexuality and not the other way around? And thus, is PhiloTheos really relying on the New Testament for his views or is something else influencing him?

Is There A Christian Defense For Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Laws?

 In the 6-part docudrama series on intergalactic history, one of the lead protagonist gives us an insight into human behavior that is as profound as it is concise. That protagonist said

'Fear is the path to the dark side' 

 

That protagonist went onto explain the dynamics of his claim:

'Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering'

He then gives a prognosis for those who have given in to fear:

'Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you, it will'

And Obi-Wan's apprentice is evidence, not proof because one cannot prove by example in this case because our sample size is uncountable, to what the protagonist claimed about fear.

If the protagonist's prognosis is true, then we here, both in society and The Church, are in a heap of trouble. If the prognosis is true, then society is in a heap of trouble because a significant portion of a very influentially powerful segment of society has given in to fear of the rest of America. And if the prognosis is true, the Church is in even bigger trouble than society because a bigger percentage of its people belong those who have given in to fear.

Now the model of thought shown above is one way to analyze the article we are about to review. Another way is to look at the article from the perspective of a psychological look at authoritarianism. For example, the following is a list of those who are described as having an authoritarian personality type (click here for the source):

1. 'Blind allegiance to conventional beliefs about right and wrong'
2. 'Belief in aggression toward those who do not subscribe to conventional thinking, or who are different'
3. 'A negative view of people in general - i.e. the belief that people would all lie, cheat or steal if given the opportunity'
4. 'A need for strong leadership which displays uncompromising power'
5. 'A belief in simple answers and polemics - i.e. The media controls us all or The source of all our problems is the loss of morals these days'
6. 'Resistance to creative, dangerous ideas. A black and white worldview'
7. 'A tendency to project one's own feelings of inadequacy, rage and fear onto a scapegoated group'
8. 'A preoccupation with violence and sex'

First, I'll add a disclaimer. I am not diagnosing any one as having that personality type. But, we can say that the above criteria is an indicator of a person taking an authoritarian approach on a given set of issues. 

We should note two things about the following list. First, the study of the authoritarian personality started in around the 1930s and was a triggered by the rise of fascism in parts of Europe during that time. Second, regarding the first trait listed above, what is 'conventional' is relative because it depends on the circles, especially but not exclusively  the ideological and political ones, one belongs to.

So what is being reviewed today? The article is on how Christians should approve of Uganda's laws prohibiting homosexuality. Spoiler alert--no graphic descriptions will be used in this article. I might refer to parts of the text of the Uganda law prohibiting homosexuality and that article does contain graphic descriptions. But I will not include those descriptions in this article But our focus here will be elsewhere.

On the American Reformer website (click here for the website), there is an article by an anonymous contributor who goes by the pen name of 'PhiloTheos' (the literal meaning from the Greek is 'loves God.'). His/her, though I am guessing that it is a his, article not only supports Uganda's latest laws prohibiting homosexuality, it claims that all Christians should also support such laws (click here for the article). To make his/her points, the writer strongly takes a fellow Christian, Russell Moore,  to task for criticizing Uganda's law and trying to distance that law from Christianity (click here for his article). 

So what this article will do is to look at the descriptions of homosexuality and those, like Moore, who oppose the Ugandan law in the light of what was cited above.

First, here are some of the descriptions of homosexuality in PhiloTheos's article:

1. immoral and a threat to society
2. a 'living death'
3. same-sex marriage is a 'metaphysical impossibility'
4. wicked
5. an 'egregious sin' 
6. destroys families
7. leads to other degenerate sins in society
8. because homosexuality 'shrivels' the souls of those in the nation, it leads to tyranny
9. homosexuality is against the traditional values and morals of our nation

Now let's read what PhiloTheos has to say about Moore and others who have or would oppose anti-homosexual legislation:

1. Moore bitterly attacked the Ugandan law
2. Moore does not know what he is talking about when he refers to separation of church and state when arguing against anti-homosexual laws
3. Moore is riding on the gay ship
4. those who oppose the Ugandan law are now part of the gay cult
5. SCOTUS Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority view in the Obergefell decision, is an agent of the modern Libertarian and Gay regime
6. SCOTUS Justice Kennedy us a vanguard for the post-communistic Global American Empire (GAE)
7. the GAE forces LGBT ideology on nations using bullying tactics
8. GAE enforces gay colonialism

The above are just some sample views from the article being reviewed. And the question being posed by this article is how well are the views from the representative of the Christian faith. Or, are these views Christian views that have been contaminated by fear and an authoritarian approach to the subject?

The first issue to tackle is to judge how well do the claims made about homosexuality in the article agree with what is said in the New Testament. We should note here that perhaps the best part of the New Testament to read to evaluate what was written in the article is Romans 1:18-28 (click here for the passage). 

Here we should note that Paul is not gentle when talking about homosexuality. In the Romans passage he says that because people worshiped and served the creation instead of the creator, God gave people over to shameful desires that go against nature as God designed it. And so homosexuality is one of the shameful desires that God gave some men and some women up to.

But we should notice something else here. Just as homosexuality is against nature as God intended it, it should be no surprise to see homosexuality outside of the Church. And shouldn't that play a role in how we regard and treat homosexuals in society? We should also note here that in terms of shock, I Corinthians 5 contains a heterosexual sin that is so shocking to Paul that he states that it is not even tolerated by the pagan unbelievers in Corinth--and that is really saying something.

We should also note  Romans 2:1ff warns those who believe in God not to judge those who commit homosexuality and the other sins listed in the rest of Romans 1. Why was that? It was specifically because those who would be doing the judging commit, generally speaking, the same sins as those whose sins are listed in Romans 1.

Going back to I Corinthians 5, verses 12 and 13 tell us something about Paul's concern for sexual purity in society: he has none. Paul is concerned solely about sexual purity in the Church. In the expelling of a person for sexual immorality from the Church, Paul is describing their situation as being unprotected from society because, for the time being, they are no longer in the Church. And that says something about what Paul expected from society.

While the writer of the American Reformer article cites Romans 13 as justification for laws like Uganda's anti-homosexual law because Paul described the government as having a sword to punish those who do evil and reward those who do good. The good and evil that Paul says the government should respond to were never explicitly defined.

Let's be clear here, Paul does describe homosexuality as a serious sin that merits eternal condemnation. But the subject of the article being reviewed is about how the state and society should regard and treat homosexuality. And perhaps I am blind but I see the writer of the article being reviewed being more influenced by other factors than by the New Testament when he writes to not only support the Ugandan law, but claims that all Christians should support it too.

Now let's look at whether PhiloTheos's reaction to those who do or would oppose the Ugandan law is at least partially consistent with the Scriptures. Note, like his/her reaction to homosexuality, PhiloTheos speaks in extremes. He says that Moore is basically on board with the gay agenda, whatever that would be, and that SCOTUS Justice Anthony Kennedy is part of a Neo-colonial effort to make nations submit to the GAE and force nations into accept homosexuality.

But let's look at that more closely. If Moore is a part of such an effort, why doesn't he tell the Church to pronounce that homosexuality is no longer a sin? Moore is very orthodox regarding sexuality. He sees homosexuality as a sin that must be repented of. Is such a belief about homosexuality part of the gay agenda? Likewise, is the belief that homosexuals should be treated as equals in society, which would include the legalization of same-sex marriage, mean that Justice Kennedy is no longer just a SCOTUS justice, he is part of a global effort to control and even bully nations into joining not just the GAE, but a global, neo-colonial effort to impose the LGBT ideology and agenda on nations? Again, is PhiloTheos reading the situation right or has hyperbole been injected into his assessment through either fear or a preference for authoritarianism?

Perhaps we should take a look at one more facet here. When PhiloTheos describes homosexuality as being a threat to traditional marriage, isn't he really saying that the lack of conformity is an attack on tradition?  And yet, isn't it people from the Christian community, like PhiloTheos, who wrote the article being reviewed here, who is trying to prohibit homosexuality and not the other way around? And thus, is PhiloTheos really relying on the New Testament for his views or is something else influencing him?

This End Of Government Is Not The End Of Government

 Timon Cline (a short bio can be found at the end of the article being reviewed) wrote an article about government and its title is somewhat ambiguous. That article is titled The End Of Government (click here for the article). Some might conclude from that title that he is writing about a future time when government no longer exists. Such a conclusion would be wrong. What Cline is referring to is the ultimate purpose of government. In particular, he is referring to the end of government in America.

Contrary the views of many liberals, Cline does not see the purpose of government as ensuring and protecting or goods or liberties of the individual, Rather, Cline takes the position that, according to earlyAmerican tradition, the end of government is to protect the public and work for the common good. To provide evidence for his claim, Cline relies not on the formation of the national government as it was defined by The Constitution. The reason for bypassing federal government as defined by The Constitution is that, according to Cline, it was ignorant of a very favorite conservative sacred cow: subsidiarity. And so for the most part, Cline documents his case by citing sources especially colonial and state documents and sermons. In the beginning of his article, Cline also cites Aquinas and Aristotle and he references Anti-Federalist works.

Cline starts his article by countering arguments made by Jeffrey Bristol regarding what government is all about. Here, the argument isn't about whether government is there to work for the common good, but whether individual liberty is the common good. Cline rejects Bristol's contention and cites sources that say the following about what the common good is. First, Cline defines what the common good revolves around. It revolves around man as a social animal and his need to live and be with others as well as to reproduce (focus there is on the family) and help each other. And so, the common good is what is good for the public, not the individual nor the ruler.  

Time and time again, the common good is referred to generally rather than being well-defined as if the audience too should recognize right away what the common good is. But when some specifics of what the common good is are mentioned, they include: goodness and wholesomeness, what is good for the plantations, what promotes peace and the welfare of the public, is a law of God, is assistance for people as they emigrate, it advances Christ's Kingdom, promotes 'public happiness,' 'safety and security' (which is both a means toward public happiness and a good), unity, prosperity, and protecting the natural rights of citizens just to name some of what is associated with the common good.

The above is achieved by passing laws that honor God and promote the public good and well as are according to natural law and God's Word. These laws focus on what is good for the public or whole community rather than what is good for just the individual.

In addition, it is the citizens of the people as a whole whether they be the nation or a community who determine whether a government has fulfilled its duties of providing for the common good.

In his conclusion, Cline cites one more reference that says:

A Common-wealth properly so-called is… the Government of a Society of God’s Subjects by a Sovereign subordinate to God, for the common good, and the Glory, and pleasing of God.

So what should we say to all of the above? We should note that when Cline mentions the government created by The Constitution, he neglects to mention the context in which that document was written. It was written during a period of and in response to wide spread dissent and Shays Rebellion of the economic conditions people had to endure. That is evident when one reviews all that The Constitution says about the militia. The purpose of the militia was to put down insurrections and repel invasions. The militia was chosen as the protector of the government because it could also serve as a check on the power of government since the militia, in contrast to a standing army, employed the common people rather than professional soldiers.

Something else we should note here especially in addressing Cline's encouragement to Christians who view government the same way he does and is trying to make government pass laws to promote the common good as they see it. We are not longer living in the same social context as were the people whom Cline cited. Christendom was the status quo back in the times of the people Cline cited whether they be those who wrote the government documents Cline cited or gave the sermons he referenced. 

To some, we have become a post-Christian, secular nation. And so should we still use the Christian notion of natural law and God's Word to define what is the common good? If we do, can laws based on those two entities produce security and happiness for the public when the public is diverse? Will the part of the community that rejects the Christian view of natural law and God's Word call for the abolishment of a government that bases it laws on those entities? And if so, should such a government dissolve even though it will have the support of many Christians?

And what should we say about the social injustices that reigned during the times of the people whom Cline cites? Does the existence of those social injustices take away from what those people said back then? If we follow the words and sentiments of the people whom Cline cites, will we become more vulnerable to supporting or being silently complicit with the social injustices practiced in the past?

And if we only let these past sources be our guides in terms of determining what we expect from our government, are we subjecting ourselves to the tyranny of tradition. It should be easy to see that Cline is a traditionalist. And here we should note that traditionalism is the other side of the coin from narcissism. For both traditionalism and narcissism put their favorite set of time periods on very high pedestals to the extent that they view their heroes from those time periods as having everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them--to borrow the phraseology of Martin Luther King Jr. when he was speaking against the Vietnam War.

We should note that Cline's position here begs the question of the superiority, or even validity, of those voices from the past who lived and spoke in a different context than we do. 

Finally, from a Scriptural perspective that lies outside of the traditional Christian views of the people Cline is citing, we Christians need to approach Cline's approach to government and the ramifications that come if government functions as he thinks it should . After all, is that which is implied with Cline's description of the end of government  calling on us to violate what Jesus said about not forcing our evangelism on others or not lording it over others? Is it causing us to reject Paul's example in I Corinthians 5:12-13 in terms of how he reacted to sexual impurity in society?

There are two things to consider here. The first is rather minor. That is whether Cline is right in what he claims about how government was viewed back in colonial times. The second item is a major concern. If Cline is right, should we Christians follow the examples of how those from the past viewed government? Or should we decide,  for multiple reasons, that we need to use the Scriptures to blaze our own trail in how we view government today?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blog For February 15, 2023

Feb 7

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman regarding his remarks during a Heidelblog podcast which said that the Church as an institution is not to call on society to change.

And so the Church as an institution is suppose to reprimand society for its sexual immorality and acceptance of abortion, but it is suppose to keep silent when the nation wages immoral wars, has a lifestyle that continually pollutes the world and contributes to increasing climate change, embraces an economy that continues to increase the wealth disparity between the classes and races, and continues in its systemic racism? Of course, I left out a few things.

If the Church is to call on the sinners to repent as part of preaching the Gospel, and people both commit personal sins and participate in corporate sins of the state and society, then the Church as an institution is to call on the state, society, and the people  that are apart of the state and society to repent of committing corporate sins, not just individual sins. Otherwise, the Church as an institution might find itself repeating the same sins that it has been committing in the past few centuries: siding with wealth and power.

I say all of that as one who believes that neither Transformationalism nor 2KT is either correct in everything or is wrong in everything.

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

Feb 8

To Heidelblog and Erick-Woods Erickson and his article that criticizes the movement and the message of the 'Jesus gets us' commercials on tv.

Erick-Woods Erickson's full article can be found at:

    https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/a-waste-of-money

Erick-Woods Erickson could have wasted lest time and words by saying the following: When cultural relevance takes precedence over God's Revelation of Himself, then we are taught that we are the ones who seek to change Christ rather than accepting the fact that it is Christ who changes those who believe. The difference between the two approaches could not be more binary. In the former, we are taught that we are to make Christ in our image. In the latter, Christ starts to conform those who believe into His image.

Other than that, Erickson simply exhibits the same kind of behavior of those he is criticizing by showing partiality to political conservatism.

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

To Kay Clarity and the reposting of her article that calls conservatives to arms to battle "terrorists" from the 'progressive left' who are censoring conservatives like herself. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Outside of recognizing that the above article was just an emotional tirade, this article is a call to arms without establishing the premise for such a call. The premise is claimed, but never defined and documented. Let alone the black-white world where "terrorists" from the 'progressive, radical left' are seeking to silence conservatives. Yes, there are some instances of where some conservatives have been shouted down or censored. But there is no documentation provided which supports that such silencing is widespread. On the other hand, we should note the actions taken by conservative state governments, such as those in Florida, Texas, and Missouri, that are seeking to censor and silence the teaching of Critical Race Theory or any other view of the history of racism in America that would infringe on one becoming an enthusiastically loyal American patriot.

The above is not just an emotional tirade, it is an authoritarian appeal. Unfortunately authoritarianism has infected not just some conservatives, but some liberals and some leftists as well. And it is authoritarianism that moves people to try to silence those whose views which it objects to. That applies regardless of the ideology of those seek to silent others. And so it applies to some who are conservatives, some who are liberals, and some who are leftists.

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

To Simon Joost on his blog article on applying 2K Theology (2KT) to how the Church should relate to the State in South Africa during the Post-Apartheid era. Joost seems to believe that, because of 2KT, there should be an apartheid between Church and State. But that apartheid approach is balanced by the promotion of Natural Law. Boost does not talk much about the promotion of Natural Law in this article. Joost's article appeared in the Heidelblog.

When we put our pet theologies and confessional standards on too high a pedestal, they become a canon for the canon of the Scriptures. We should never ignore those theologies and confessional standards because they consist of writings from Christian theologians and teachers of the past. We just can't put their content on too high a pedestal or we become traditionalists. The problem with traditionalism is that it serves as the other side of the coin of narcissism. And in being the other side of the coin of narcissism it shares some of narcissism's weaknesses. 

And so we come to Reformed 2KT and its interaction with the government. We should note that while the government deals with just the the relationships between people (the horizontal), the Church also deals with the relationships between people and God (the vertical). And 2KT is correct in producing a partial apartheid between the Church and State though that apartheid can't be so consistent and profound that the Church is not able to speak prophetically to the State. We should note that 2KT's major weakness is that it infringes either significantly or completely allowing and enabling the. Church to speak prophetically the state.

One factor should be considered here. When we identify as being a Christian, everything that we do and say and everything that we refrain from doing and saying can become identified with the Gospel and thus our stumbling bring can bring discredit to the Gospel. And that puts all of us Christians in the same sinking boat because as James says: ' We all stumble in many ways..' That admission from James implies that we should be gentle when feeling compelled to correct other Christians whom we perceive as hurting the reputation of the Gospel.

Certainly the Church as an institution should not try to run the state and society, which when it has happened has greatly harmed the reputation of the Gospel. Here, we should be cautious about promoting the idea that the State must enforce what the Church sees as natural law. The unnecessary promotion of natural law can be a backdoor approach to the Church trying to run the State. On the other hand, when the Church as an institution is reluctant to speak and act out against social injustices, it can, and has, brought just as much harm to the reputation of the Gospel as when the Church has tried to run or become the State.

Today, it seems that 2KT promoters use Natural Law to defend their insistence that the State must codify certain Biblical standards for sexual behavior while use 2KT to defend their silence on social injustices allowed, or even promoted, by the State. Such falls in line with the past few centuries of Church History where the Church has sorely pressed people regarding their individual behaviors while siding with wealth and power via silent complicity when it comes to not speaking prophetically to the State and society in the face of social injustices.  

We should also note one more point. Christians are called to suffer and even die without resisting their persutors for the sake of the Gospel. But are Christians called on to do the same when facing social injustices with unbelievers? That question was never directly addressed in the New Testament.

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

Feb 12

To Heidelblog and Samuel G. Parkinson for the part of Parkinson's article quoted by the Heidelblog post. Parkinson's article was about practicing the Regulative Principle and how including the reciting of creeds like the Nicene Creed should be included as part of the Regulative Principle.

Samuel G. Parkinson's full article can be found at:

    https://credomag.com/2023/01/the-regulative-principle-and-the-corporate-recitation-of-creeds/

From Parkinson's article, Parkinson seems like a traditionalist, which is the other side of the coin of being a narcissist. I say that not as an insult, though it sounds  like one, but in order to make a point. The point being that perhaps in deciding on following the Regulative Principle that he is elevating a certain set of time periods from the past above the present time so that if there could be an exchange of ideas between the two time periods, his set of time periods would have everything to teach and nothing to learn from the present time period. That is the problem with traditionalism. Narcissism, of course, reverses that teaching and learning direction.

Regarding the Regulative Principle, we don't see that principle stated, practiced, or promoted in the New Testament. There is no clear communication describing how worship must be to the exclusion of other practices. We might even add that the Regulative Principle was not followed by Jesus when He lived on earth. We can also add that there is no New Testament directive telling us to recite creeds during worship. But here we should also caution that whatever ways we choose to worship God, the attitude of worshiping God must be central to the ways we worship. 

We should that in Acts 15, the Apostles decided to reduce the requirements for Gentile believers to be counted as believers. Holding to the Regulative Principle for worship and the reciting of creeds during worship shows an attitude of adding to requirements for Gentile believers. It's not that we should refuse to recite creeds like the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, but it should be optional. Also, we should call into question the insistence on the holding to the Regulative Principle.

Finally, in describing the basis for the Regulative Principle for worship, there seems to be too much focus on the particulars so that follow the letter of the law while missing the spirit of the law. What is singing, preaching/teaching, and read but ways of communicate God's Word to His people. So what is most important here, that we sing, preach/teach, and read or that we communicate God's Word?

One Place Where Christian Theology Is Not Anti-racist

 One of the debates Christians need to participate in is whether Christian Theology contributes to racism. Many current religiously conservative Christian leaders cite theology and Bible passages to show that from the very beginning Christianity was antiracist. 

Unfortunately, Church History begs to differ seeing how many Christians who first settled in this country believed in white supremacy. Some of them practiced and/or promoted slavery while others did the same for Jim Crow. Of course there are lists of past Christian theologians that are presented as being on one or the other side of the issue. But I wonder whether the times have helped shaped the views of some current Theologians to read the Scriptures recognizing the immorality of racism.

Now a theology doesn't have to be talking about racism for it to promote or protect racism. One such theology deals with our relationship with the state and the New Testament commands telling us to submit to all in authority.

One such theologian who taught about our need, as Christians, to submit to those in authority was the late R. C. Sproul (click here for a bio). Two of his very short works that we will consider here is an article of his that tries to reflect the New Testament teachings on submission to authority (click here for the article) and a podcast where Sproul talks about civil disobedience (click here for the podcast).  The latter is necessary here because the subject of civil disobedience is what connects our obligations to our governing authorities to the battle against racism. For  many, both believers and unbelievers, practiced civil disobedience in the 1950s and 1960s to battle racism. 

Sproul's teaching on submitting to our governing authorities is rather clear. We owe the government almost complete obedience to their laws and demands. The almost is in there in case what the government asked us to do goes against what God tells us to do in the Scriptures.

There are a couple of concerns, according to Sproul, that are involved in why God tells us to  almost completely submit to the government. BTW, the Scriptures that Sproul uses here are I Peter 2:11-16 (click here for the passage) and Romans 13 (click here for that passage).

The concerns Sproul saw were that Christians should be aware of their witness for Christ.  That is that our behavior should be honorable so that we are bringing prestige, rather than shame on, to the Gospel. And our submission to the government is part of that. The second concern is that since God has placed those people in government to exercise governmental authority, to disobey those whom God has put into government is to disobey God. 

The overall reason why the command to submit to governing authorities comes up, according to Sproul, is because people's main problem is lawlessness. And thus, we need to submit to our governing authorities to battle lawlessness and promote the law.

Sproul allows for exceptions to submitting to what the government ells us to do. One is when those in authority tell us to do something that is contrary to what God has told us to do or refrain from doing in the Scriptures. One example that was given was the place mentioned in the book of Acts where the leaders told a couple of Apostles, if memory serves, that they were forbidden to preach the Gospel. That goes directly against God's commanding us to preach and teach the Gospel.

Another exception, provided by Sproul, was civil disobedience under certain conditions. Though Sproul doesn't spell out those conditions, he references them by giving Martin Luther King Jr and the civil rights movement as an example. According to Sproul, King's way of practicing civil disobedience was acceptable because it was an attempt to overturn local and state laws that violated federal law. And thus, according to Sproul, King was still practicing the general principle of submitting to governing authorities.

However, there are some flies in Sproul's teaching ointment of submitting to our governing authorities. The first is to note that not all of the actions taken by those in the Civil Rights movement which had King's approval were done with following federal law in mind. The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the lunch counter sit-ins targeted businesses even though only the latter employed civil disobedience. The Freedom Rides targeted the Interstate Commerce Commission. In addition, according to King, those initial actions along with the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were undertaken to gain dignity, not 'genuine equality' for Blacks.

In addition, King's view of what Romans 13 said about submitting to those in government differed significantly from Sproul's. King thought that it was our duty as citizens to protest and even practice civil disobedience against immoral laws, immoral because they failed to recognize the dignity of people, regardless of what federal law said. For he believed that peaceful disobedience to those laws showed more respect for the law than the enforcement of immoral laws. The submission to governing authorities for King in response to immoral laws was not seen in the submission to those laws, but in the willingness to peaceably suffer the consequences of one's disobedience.

But the issue at hand is whether Sproul's interpretation of what the New Testament says about submitting to the governing authorities infringes on antiracism efforts. And we can focus more on that issue if we eliminate the provision that Sproul allowed for the Civil Rights movement which was that civil disobedience was being used to get the state and local laws in line with federal law. 

But suppose we didn't have those parts of The Constitution that promised equality for all of America's citizens?  What we have then was America during the days of the Underground Railroad. And though we can no longer ask Sproul to share his thoughts on that movement, what is, and might be unintentionally, implied by the justification Sproul gave King's practice of civil disobedience is that the Underground Railroad was not in keeping with Romans 13 or the passage shared from I Peter 2. So for that period of time, we see how Sproul's teachings on obeying the civil authorities infringes on equality and antiracism.

So how about today? Does Sproul's teaching on obeying the government still infringe on antiracism? Does such a literal application of Romans 13 interfere with undoing racism today? Here we should remember that concerns that passages like I Peter 2 and Romans 13 bring up. The first concern was with the reputation of the Gospel and the second was honoring those in authority whom God has honored. And if we take just that first concern, we could easily ask if God is honored if his people, out of support for and submission to the government, do not speak out loudly, even to the point of civil disobedience, against racism. That is because when one calls themselves a Christian, everything that person does or does not do, says or does not say can affect the reputation of the Gospel for good or bad. So if Christians are not speaking out against racism in all of its manifestations--in personal prejudice, systemic racism, and in social perceptions and attitudes--then not opposing racism is associated with the Gospel. And does such an association help or hurt the reputation of the Gospel? 

Did Peter and Paul share that specific concern about speaking out against legal but immoral practices by the government? We don't know. It seems that Sproul offers no real encouragement for doing so. One reason for that is that Sproul does not really provide a significantly deep enough comparison of the contexts of Peter and Paul compared with that of today. For whereas the context Sproul offers is a general description of tyranny, there are other significant differences to consider. For example, the Gospel was not widely known in the days of Peter and Paul; it is know practically worldwide now. Making the Gospel known to the world was one of the chief concerns of both Peter and Paul. In addition, many Christians now live in democracies where citizen participation in government, even loudly speaking out, is part of living in those nations. So unlike the times of Peter and Paul, where such levels of participation in government did not exist, the opposite is true in the here and now. So our silence and inactivity in the face of immorality have a different effect on the reputation of the Gospel today than it did during the times of Peter and Paul.

This inadequate recognition of the different historical contexts between the 1st century Christians and Christians today causes many sincere Christians to become literalists when literalism is not just no longer necessary, it is no longer appropriate. In addition, the inadequate recognition of those different contexts encourage lazy thinking among many Christians. That is because rather than distinguishing when to use imitation or to use wisdom to apply more abstract Biblical concepts, those who recognize no significant differences between the two contexts will only see the need to imitate. They feel called to only imitate those who did not have to respond to many of today's issues. Regardless of the context of their situation, they only know to imitate what was done in the 1st century. And by doing so, their sincere efforts to bring honor to the Gospel become counterproductive.

So what do you think? Does Sproul's approach to Bible passages that command us to submit to government authorities interfere with antiracism?