Bearing False Witness In The 21st Century

Ed Stetzer (click here for a bio) from Christianity Today has written a simple but very important article that we religiously conservative Christians need to read. The article is about bearing false witness on, a.k.a., lying about, our neighbor by spreading fake news (click here for the article).

Not much will be said here about the article because it speaks for itself. When we spread fake news about others, we are often breaking the 8th commandment which prohibits bearing false witness against our neighbors. We are also harming our witness for Christ. We should note that it didn't take a pandemic to get us religiously conservative Christians for to spread fake news, we have been doing that for a while. Stetzer's message is that we should repent of that and use reliable news sources to get our stories.

All of that is simple and true. But how do we know what is a reliable news source. This is something that Stetzer really does not adequately address. For Stetzer doesn't really mention any tools or principles that would help us determine what is a reliable news source and what isn't except that he warns us against being suckers for conspiracy theories.

Many of us religiously conservative Christians are afraid to trust any secular news sources. In fact, we often have trouble trusting any secular sources of information whether they report on general news or other information. This insularity makes us vulnerable to Christians and others who wish to become followers of their ideologies or agenda. And that especially occurs when one closely associates one's political views with their Christian faith. Such association often lead to misplaced loyalties, deep loyalties to things and ideas that go against the Gospel. And that leads to tribalism. And before we know it, our loyalties, rather than research and questioning, determine what is real news and what is fake news.

The religiously conservative Christian response to climate change, for example, has often rejected what is reported by climate change scientists. Why? It is because the implications of climate change science flies in the face of what we have been taught about America and its way of life. Thus, we often exclude scientific sources of information about climate change to focus on what those who believe the same about America and its way of life as we do.

It isn't that science is infallible. But it is that Church history tells us that we should be very careful in disputing carefully researched scientific positions. For example, both Protestant and Roman Church leaders once sharply condemned those who promoted heliocentrism. And yet, those who claimed that the sun was the center of our solar system were proven right and that is despite how many religiously conservative Christian leaders used passages from the Bible to argue their case.

The above is partly behind why we religiously conservative Christians fall for spreading fake news. And that was not covered by Stetzer.

Other than that, Stetzer's article, though simple, provides a very good appeal for us and others to stop believing and spreading fake news. One thing I use to help me reduce the spreading of fake news is to use a website that reports on the factual reliability rating of most of the news sources out there. One can also use reliable fact check websites to test individual stories. One of my favorite fact check websites to use is factcheck.org.

What Does Eschatology Got To Do With Social Justice?

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

and:

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

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

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

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

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


 

Ambiguity Is Persuasion's Best Friend

In July, in the Exchange, a blog run by Christianity Today, Ed Stetzer posted an article citing a study about American support for Israel (click here for the article). The study was from Lifeway, a research group that conducts studies to help advise churches regarding today's issues. We should note that Stetzer is both the author of this Christianity Today blogpost and the executive director of Lifeway. 

The study used two surveys and concerned itself with American attitudes regarding Israel. The context for the Christianity Today blogpost was the nuclear deal with Iran. The research cited included survey data from Americans including self-identified evangelical and fundamentalist as well as senior pastors/ministers/priests (click here to see the section on methodology).

The study found that support for Israel's statehood correlated positively with both education and one's belief in, what must be a specific view of, prophecy--from Lifeway's description of the study. Interspersed in the Christianity Today blogpost were quotes from Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama. But what was absent were quotes from any Iranian leader.

With regards to the title of the article, 80% of American Evangelicals support Israel's statehood as opposed to 46% of Americans who do the same. Now while the Lifeway article on which the Christianity Today blogpost was based gave some specifics about who was surveyed, as far as I can tell, the exact question asked of the participants was not released. In other words, what did the participants mean by saying they support Israel's statehood. For some of my fellow evangelicals and fundamentalists, that statement means supporting Israel in all of its foreign policies towards its neighbors including the Palestinians--please note that rarely does a person or nation treat a neighbor the way that Israel treats the Palestinians. For others, supporting Israel's statehood could merely mean merely supporting Israel's right to exist. That latter support may not include supporting all of Israel's foreign policies. 

And in light of the blogpost's use of Netanyahu quotes, we should note the following about the circumstances in which Israel has found itself. Netanyahu has been publicly saying that Iran is on the brink or or was just a few years away from developing nuclear weapons since 1992 (click here).  We should also note that as a member of the Treaty On The Non-Proliferation Of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Iran has every right to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes which means that all members have the right to produce low enriched uranium. Thus, Iran having the capacity to low enriched uranium is both legal and does not imply any present or future threat to any nation. We should also note that Israel, on the other hand, is suspected of by most in the world as having hundreds of nuclear weapons.

Before commenting on the significance of the survey results cited by this Christianity Today blogpost, we should note some other background information on both the participants and those who conducted the study. The Lifeway article used in the blogpost cites Lifeway Research Vice President as saying that of all literature, the Bible has had the greatest influence on America. The same article reports that from previous Lifeway research, around 48% of Americans believe that there exists a unique relationship between God and Israel today while less than 53%  believe the same about God and America. However the same article states that close to 70% of Evangelicals believe that today's Israel exists because of Bible prophecy.

And one more bit of background information, and this was not part of the Lifeway report, the predominant eschatological (a.k.a., study of the endtimes) theology in America is Dispensationalism. Here we should know that Dispensationalism sees today's Israel as having a special relationship with God and is in existence because of Bible prophecy.

With all of that background information, what are we to make of this Christianity Today blogpost? Does having such support from the majority of American Evangelicals imply anything good or bad about the state of Israel and its policies. Does that support imply that we should support Israel? The answer to the last two questions is 'NO!' What the blogpost is reporting is the results of a couple of surveys conducted on people with certain predispositions toward certain attitudes and ways of interpreting the world. And what complicates the meaning of the survey results even more is the ambiguity of the question asked. What does it mean to support Israel's statehood. Again, does it mean that the people saying they supported Israel's statehood agree and promote all of its foreign policies? Or does it mean mean that the participants merely believed that the state of Israel?

See, the blogpost article vaguely suggests that we should support Israel especially in all of its foreign policies. The quotes from Netanyahu at the beginning as well as the specifics on how Evangelicals see Israel in the light of the Bible indicates such an interpretation. And when we add those points to the high percentage of Evangelicals who support Israel's statehood along with the culture of the company doing the research,  it seems pretty conclusive that the purpose of the blogpost is encourage support for Israel's foreign policies.

But the same evidence used to suspect that the blogpost was promoting a certain agenda can also sabotage the purpose of the article. What is lost here is objectivity. And when we add that to vague support for Israel's statehood can be, there is no significant information in terms of how we should think about Israel and its policies provided by this Christianity Today blogpost.

Are American Conservative Christians The Bull In The China Shop?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





t


References

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