A Warning That Is Too Little, Too Late

Trevin Wax (click here for a bio) has recently written a blogpost for his blog on the Gospel Coalition website which tries to warn religiously conservative Christians about the emergence of new and threatening conservative political ideologies that go against the Scriptures. He describes these ideologies as revolving around racism and a rejection of globalism. And that Christians must reject these new conservative ideologies just as they reject new "leftist" and have rejected political liberalism (click here for the article).

Wax's article provides a warning that is too little, too late. It is too little because Wax does not show his full capabilities in his examination oft either past political approaches or the present ones. He doesn't show his full capabilities as he reviews Machen's struggles with liberalism. And he doesn't show his full capabilities in offering specific criticisms of either the new left or new right politics that he sees as posing a danger to Christians.

But his warning also comes too late. For he speaks about an emerging white nationalism that has been tied closely to Christianity because this white nationalism rejects what is politically liberal. But such a new white nationalism doesn't exist. Why? It isn't because white nationalism doesn't exist. It is because white nationalism is as old as the colonization of North America. Our nation's founding fathers, as well as those from the next few generations that followed them, were, for the most part, white supremacists. Even some who opposed slavery and Honest Abe himself were white supremacists (click here).

We could fast forward to the days of the Civil Rights Movement. Quite often, signs held by whites who opposed the Movement associated the Movement and integration with Communism. Some in our government were all too eager to accuse Martin Luther King Jr. of being a Communist. It was conservatives who made these accusations and conservative denominations opposed the Civil Rights Movement. Some of those conservative denominations, like the PCA and SBC, apologized decades later for their support for Jim Crow and resistance to the Civil Rights Movement. And we should note that the racism that Martin Luther King Jr. battled existed throughout the nation. He observed as much racism in the North as he did in the South. The racism was often exhibited in different ways, but it was there. So it should become clear that white nationalism is a bit older thanWax seems to give it credit for.

My own experience growing up in a religiously conservative Christian home in the Northeast saw such a subtle but clear association between political conservatism and white nationalism. The difference between then and now is that the term white nationalism, was not used in public like it is today.

So Wax's warning came too late for families like the one I grew up in. Of course, that is not Wax's fault, but it is the fault of his theological predecessors. And that starts with J. Gresham Machen.

There is no doubt that Machen contributed significantly to our ability to distinguish theological liberalism and theological conservatism. But the baggage that came with the distinctions caused the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater when it came to his reaction to liberalism. That is, not just theological liberalism was tossed aside by Machen's reaction to his denomination's rejection of him, much, if not all, of political liberalism was thrown away to because of the name of 'liberal' or 'liberalism.' In short Machen, like many who possess authoritarian personality types, embraced a black-white kind of thinking that prevented them from making distinctions between theological and political liberalism and from valid politically liberal positions from invalid ones. Thus, both theological and political liberalism was rejected by Machen and, from that, the roots of today's ties between conservative Christianity and conservative politics were planted.

We should note in Wax's article that it is appropriate to accept some forms of political conservatism. But he seems to say that all of political liberalism is viewed as a threat that must be rejected by today's religiously conservative Christians. And this is despite the fact that the Civil Rights Movement was not well supported by political conservatism.

There is one other problem with Wax's approach. Wax, he is a Christian transformationalist. And like other such transformationalists, he believes that Christians are called to change the culture. That Christians are expected to interject their values into society in order to Christianize them, in a sense. Such makes evangelism easier and helps humanity better able to flourish. But such an approach implies how we should share with others. For the transformationalist approach assumes that Christians should seek a privileged place in society in order to better interject, or force, Christian values onto society. This is to be done not just for the sake of evangelism, but out of a call for stewardship. For whatever reason, what is implied by transformationalism is a place of supremacy over society for Christianity so it can better influence society and help human life flourish under the best conditions.

But seeking that privileged place in society immediately rubs against the grain of those unbelievers who are woke. They are woke because they have seen, in history, other attempts by Christians to do the same. And those  attempts had very ugly sides to them. Though certainly the Church should play the role of a prophet in calling out the corporate sins of the state and society. To avoid seeking a place of supremacy in society, we religiously conservative Christians need to collaborate with our unbelieving fellow citizens as equals so as to forge a more just society. We cannot do such collaboration while seeking supremacy over others.

What follows from how we share society with others should be obvious. If we Christians seek some place of supremacy over others in society, we will be more inclined to be insular in what we observe and read about society. That is because our need for supremacy implies that we have a more pure view of people and politics and that view can be more easily contaminated when collaborating with unbelievers. If we share society with others as equals, then we will more readily recognize that not only do we have much to contribute to society, but that we have much to learn from others as well and that unbelievers have much to contribute to both society and ourselves.



 

Giving And Taking Away Support For Trump.

Trump's presidential campaign has not only caused what some call a "civil war" in the Republican Party, but great turmoil among many evangelicals. Historically speaking, the Republican Party has grown accustomed to taking the evangelical vote for granted. Much of this is due to the abortion issue and the degree to which the Democrats have supported a woman's right to an abortion more than the Republican Party's actual opposition to a woman's right to an elective abortion.

However, there are additional issues that have attracted evangelicals to the Republican Party. They are listed by Wayne Grudem (click here for a bio) as he recants his prior support for Trump, but he does so in an ambiguous way. For though he states that he can no longer 'commend' Trump as a candidate for President, he cannot tell us for whom his vote will toll (click here for his article). But because of the political differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties, it seems that Grudem is still significantly leaning toward voting for the Republican presidential ticket. And it is these other issues that require further scrutiny because of the ties between evangelicalism and conservative politics.

The political issues that are tugging at Grudem's vote despite Trump's repulsive character flaws include:

• Supreme Court issues like abortion, religious liberty, sexual orientation and gender identification laws
• The status of our military
• The threat of 'Islamic terrorism'
• Our nation's borders
• 'Supporting Israel'
• 'Reducing taxes and regulations'
• Obamacare
• Energy concerns
• Racism in our nation
• Size of government

 Now before addressing points of contention with Grudem, we should note that it is under Obama's Administration that racial tensions have at least surfaced if not increased. I should note here that my view of racial tensions is one of a White male. And because of my race and living location, I could very well be unaware of the state of racial tensions in our nation before Obama took office. And this is a weakness in my ability to analyze the current state of affairs.




I should also note that I share Grudem's opposition to abortion. However, having discussed the issue with several of my non Christian friends, I've come to the conclusion that for as long as we are wrecking the world by waging war and destroying the environment, that abortion is a moot issue. That not enough people who support a woman's right to obtain an elective abortion are even willing to hear what we have to say because we have shown neither enough opposition to our nation's wars nor adequate concern for how our way of life hurts the environment.

Should also note that while ambiguous, Grudem's statement on energy at least suggests that there might exist a concern for the environmental impact our use of energy might have. But here is one of the differences between conservatives and nonconservatives, with nonconservatives consisting of Democrats or political liberals and actual leftists. For nonconservatives state their concerns for how our use of energy can harm the environment in unambiguous terms.

Now Grudem expresses a fear that if religiously conservative Christians do not vote for Republican Party candidates, that these Christians will be giving great political leverage to non Christians who are hostile to Christianity. And what is ironic there is that what religiously conservative Christians call religious liberty or freedom, those from the LGBT community experience as hostility. And this brings us to Grudem's first concern: the picking of Supreme Court justices.
 
What many Evangelicals like Grudem want is a Supreme Court that favors, rather is neutral on, their religiously dictated moral values. The Obergefell decision demonstrated this as clearly as anything else could have. Here we should note that while Grudem is worried about the religious freedom of us religiously conservative Christians, he seemed to have no concern for the religious freedom of those from the LGBT community who were being forced to live under conservative Christian standards. So while religiously conservative Christians call laws that either infringe on the freedoms of the LGBT community or allow Christians to discriminate against that community morally right or religious liberty, they call any push back against such laws hostility. And the only explanation for such a double standard is that they expect to maintain a privileged position in determining the laws of our nation. Any resistance to that privileged position is seen as being part of the homosexual agenda of animosity against the Christian faith rather than resistance against domination over one's own group. In Grudem's world, it is as if one group deserves freedom while the other does not.

Second, while Grudem complains that our military needs to be rebuilt, he seems to ignore advances in weaponry, such as the new classes of ships being built for the Navy and the amount the US spends on defense. For even under Obama's decimated armed forces, the US spends more on the military and defense than the next approximately 9 nations combined. How is it then that we need to rebuild our military? That view depends on the news filter one uses to learn about military status. If one reads only conservative sources, then one gets the impression that the sky is falling for the military. But such is not the case. So Grudem reflects a conservative view that is not all that consistent with the facts on the ground but is a reality as it is perceived in conservative circles.

Grudem also expresses concern over the threat of 'Islaimic terrorism.' However, where is his concern for the causes of such terrorism? Where is his concern for how American foreign policies that rely on interventions and support for dictators as well as for Israels' occupation against the Palestinians? We should note that Grudem favors support for Israel. But one must read that statement in a conservative context to understand what that means. For one can support Israel without supporting the Occupation and Israel's constant confiscation of land and expansion of settlements. 

But conservatives take a tribal approach to supporting Israel and defend that by claiming that Israel is the only democracy in the region. If Grudem had read American-Israeli activist Jeff Halper, he would note that Israel consists of an ethnocracy, not a democracy. An ethnocracy is where democratic processes are used for group based on ethnicity, language, or religion to control government and gain a privileged position in determining the laws of a society.  The reason why one could say that conservatives take a tribal approach to supporting Israel is because they rationalize many of the injustices Israel visits on the Palestinians because it is Israel that is performing the injustices. That is what happens when loyalty to a group becomes too high.

In addition, Grudem expresses a concern with securing our nation's borders. At the same time, like the threat of Islamic terrorism, we should note what Grudem does not seem to be aware of. That a significant number of our problems with immigration start with our foreign policies that cause people to have to leave their own homeland.  In fact, 2 of the top 3 nations from which illegal immigrants come are from nations that have had coups that had American support either during or after the coup. Those nations are Guatemala and Honduras. The third nation, Mexico, was part of NAFTA and NAFTA was responsible for much job volatility depending on the economic sector. Where is Grudem's concern for such foreign policies?

We could go on here, but the point should have been made by now. That Grudem ambiguous withdraw of support for Trump is limited by his ties to conservative politics. And he strongly ties his conservative political convictions to evangelicalism. And his strong ties to conservative politics suggests that Grudem's access to news is well filtered and thus he demonstrates self-imposed limitations on understanding the world around him. That limited view is thus associated with Evangelicalism and brings dishonor to the Gospel. So regardless of his condemnation of Trump, Grudem's political views hurt the reputation of the Gospel.

when The Political Past Catches Up With The Religious Present

Cathy Lynn Grossman has just written an article for Religion News Service about a Pew Research Center report on religion in the US (click here for Grossman's report). The report states that things are changing in that the number of Christians is declining while the number of those who are not religious is increasing. And one of the reasons why these numbers are changing is because of political views more than religious ones. In particular, conservative politics and conservative religion, which appeared to have married each other immediately after birth, show one partner embarassing the other.

Grossman reports that the Pew Center report shows that while Christians make up the vast majority of people in America, Christianity is losing people at a disconcerting rate (8 percentage points from 2007 to 2014). This drop cuts across all demographic groups. Those who have recovered the most fumbled believers are atheists and agnostics. And a reason why Conservative Christianity is bleeding believers, that is in terms of percentages, has to do with conservative politics. Here, Grossman quotes Mike Hout, a sociology professor who provided comments for the study, in attributing the disinterest in Conservative Christianity to its ties in conservative politics. Some who left this branch of Christianity "didn't want to be identified with" conservative political 'agenda.'

We should note that political ties have harmed Conservative Christianity before--only in America, the Conservative Church is getting off relatively light. For Conservative Christianity's past ties have often been with those with power. And both the French and Russian Revolutions saw at least portions of the Conservative Church, the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church respectively, experience some harsh persecution because of their political connections.

Will this trend of conservative politics costing Conservative Christianity believers continue? The study doesn't address that so we have to stay tuned for the next report. But suffice it to say, Conservative Christianity's leaders must examine the ties between conservative politics and Conservative Christianity. Otherwise, Conservative Christianity will have doomed itself to the future of conservative politics in America. Such hardly seems to be a Biblical approach in determining which political views to pursue. And the past indicates that if we don't take a Biblical approach to determining our political views, we are more likely than not to latch on to those with wealth and power. And as the previously mentioned revolutions indicate, such an approach sets us up for unnecessary persecution--political persecution that is, not religious persecution.