Christianity's Credibility Problem

 Christianity has had a credibility problem for quite a while. It started when Modernism's reliance on science and reason replaced Pre Modernism's reliance of faith and revelation. Since then, as attested to by a teaching series by W. Robert Godfrey on the fall of Christendom posted on the Abounding Grace Radio website (click here for the newest post on the website and there for the archives), the influence on the western world by Christianity has be diminishing at a steady clip.

To help counteract this credibility problem, Joshua Ryan Butler (click here for a bio) has written a short article for the Gospel Coalition website on 4 causes for this loss of credibility. The loss of credibility occurs because the Gospel is eventually blamed for the struggles witnessed by a given individual. Butler's article calls this loss of credibility 'deconstruction' and he lists 4 causes for this loss. Before delving into the article, we should note that there is technical definition for the word 'deconstruction' and a more common definition. While the former definition deals with a critical approach dealing with the weaknesses of language, the latter definition serves as an analysis that reveals the inadequacy of a set of beliefs.

In his article, Butler lists 4 causes for the current deconstruction of the Christian faith in today's world. And though we will list them and briefly describe those causes here in the review of Butler's article, it is my opinion that Butler really doesn't address the core reason why Christianity is not seen as being credible as it use to be (click here for the article).

In his article, the 4 reasons for the current deconstruction of the Christian faith as identified by Butler are: Church Hurt, Poor Teaching, the Desire to Sin, and Street Cred.

Church Hurt is described by Butler as the pain caused by exploitive leaders or churches. When one is personally injured by a church leader or disillusioned because of some significant sins by a recognized Christian leader occurs, or when one is injured while attending or participating in a church whose atmosphere is toxic, that individual feels betrayed among other things. 

Poor Teaching is described by Butler as when what can be said about God or the Christian faith consists of misrepresentations. Butler mentions the first general description of poor teaching as when people are made to believe that they must face a false dichotomy between faith and science. One of the first historical examples of such poor teaching not mentioned by Butler was when Heliocentrism was first introduced. Because of centuries of teaching to the contrary, rejection of Heliocentrism should have been expected. But it was how that rejection was expressed by prominent leaders of both the Roman Church and Protestant Churches that serves as an example of what Butler means by poor teaching. More recent areas in which poor teaching has been provided by some Church leaders include a total, as opposed to a partial, rejection of evolution, resistance to what science has said about man-caused climate change, and resistance to what medical science has said about about the Covid 19 Pandemic. Of course poor teaching isn't restricted to areas of science. Poor teaching can focus on misrepresenting how one should live as a Christian.

Now while the first two causes for deconstruction revolve around external sources to the individual, the 3rd cause deals with the desires of the individual who is struggling to maintain their faith, That the real conflict that a given individual is facing is their wanting to engage in ways of thinking or behaving that are forbidden by the Scriptures. Of course, each of us Christians have areas of life where how we live is not in line with the Scriptures. But when those desires lead to the continued committing of certain significant sins or make us want to give up the fight against sins, then rejecting the Gospel becomes preferable for some to continuing the fight against sin.

According to Butler, Street Cred becomes a cause for deconstruction of the Gospel when fitting in with cultural heroes becomes more important than to a person than God's approval. As with the 3rd cause for deconstruction, this cause rests with the individual who is being pulled to resign from the Christian faith as defined by the Scriptures.

What all of these causes have in common is that they focus on the actions of the parts of the Church rather than the Church as a whole, as an institution. And that is where Butler's list of the 4 causes for deconstruction comes up short. Never mind that, like many Gospel Coalition articles, the desired accessibility of a given article often overrides the need to adequately discuss the complexities and details of a given subject. But still, the forsaking of Christendom, the rejection the Christian faith by Post Modernism, or the replacing of the Gospel with alternative secular ideologies is due to Church history more than to the actions of individual Christians, individual churches, or small groups of either. Church history is plagued with examples that makes one question whether believing in the Gospel actually makes a difference in people's lives. For in Church history, we see a great plethora of examples of corruption or of approval of exploitation by those with wealth and power.

Though I am not sure of the context of Marx's statement about religion being the opiate of the people, I know the context of the same sentiments expressed by Lenin. For when Lenin called religion the 'opium for the people,' he did so out of observation rather than out of a logical analysis of the Christian Faith. Read what Lenin observed in 1905 (click here for the source):

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

If we Christians really want to battle the attempts to deconstruct our faith, we, both as individuals and the Church as an institution, must add to the list provided by Butler words and actions that counter the damage that Church history has done to the reputation of the Gospel. We must admit how all too often, the Church has sided with wealth and power at the expense of justice and mercy to individuals and the masses. And for us Americans, that battle begins with the Conservative Church's conflating of Christianity with Capitalism and the American way of life. For what Critical Theory and CRT is correctly but with flaws pointing out are the atrocities and vast injustices practiced in the name of Capitalism and the American way of life. For while it is easier for many of us to see the atrocities and injustices practiced in the name of Marxism, we need to see that what we often treasure about our American heritage has caused as much injustices and suffering as that which we attribute to Marxism. We need to see that there is no innocent ideology nor is there any ideology that is omniscient. Thus we need to separate our Christian faith from Capitalism and Americanism if we are to adequately answer the current challenges to Christianity.

References

• https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/4-causes-deconstruction/
• https://www.joshuaryanbutler.com/about-2/

When Will We Ever Learn?

 The issue of politics has been a thorny one for many a Christian. Why? Because all too often, it tries to pull both of our feet down to earth while we meditate on  what it means to be a dual citizen of both heaven and earth. And all too often, politics wants our full attention when it only merits less than half of it.

But that doesn't mean that politics is not important, especially while living in a Western Democracy. For we have a stewardship in how we live on earth regardless of where we live. And democracies have ways of increasing our stewardship role in terms of politics.

The latest venture into this tempest is an article posted on the Gospel Coalition website written by Dr. Steven Bryan who is a member of the faculty at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (click here for a bio). In that article, Bryan tries to discover a third way between conservatives and progressives in how we interact in a political world. He is looking for this 3rd way because he is writing to Christians (click here for a link to the article).

In commenting on the conservative and progressive political worlds, Bryan tries to do what Fox News only claims to do: that is to be fair and balanced with both conservatives and progressives. And I think he is fairly successful in his attempts. But he first starts of with comparing the confessional evangelical with those in the white social group voting block. In that comparison, Bryan states that while the former is an ethnically diverse group that is always trying to change for the better, the latter is not necessarily that way. He continues by comparing confessional evangelicals with the progressivist agenda. That agenda stands in contrast with what the Reformers wrote about the Church because that agenda is seeking to get the Church to compromise itself by fitting in with the world standards and ideas. That serves as a warning that we should selectively heed.

Bryan notes that sometimes there are similarities in the agendas of progressives and conservatives with what confessing evangelicals work for. Of course confessional evangelicals can hold to those similarities for different reasons than progressives and we could add conservatives as well. Bryan also repeats what G.K. Chesterton wrote about conservatives and progressives. Chesterton wrote that while 'progressives go on making mistakes,' conservatives 'prevent mistakes from being corrected.' Bryan also noted that in the US, confessing evangelicals align themselves with political conservatism.

This could lead one into thinking that Bryan wants us Christians to be centrists. To think that would be a mistake according to Bryan. Rather, Christians should take on a gadfly in relating to both groups.  The term that Bryan used was 'prophets' who come from  the wilderness. And as prophets, we are to try to bring both conservatives and progressives in line with what the Scriptures say. And that we should do this with unwavering clarity and conviction. He then says that the greatest threat to the Church and the Gospel are 'overt antagonists.' He then quotes II Timothy 3:5 in warning us to stay away from such people.

So Bryan's article is a so far a mix between some good stuff to agree with and a lot left to the imagination.

What should we say about this article? For one thing, Bryan seems to stress that the Church should stand not only above the fray between conservatives and progressives, but in judging them. What else can we conclude from him telling us to act toward and speak [down] to them as if we are prophets from the wilderness. And it is at this point, it becomes evident that Bryan might be too heavenly minded to be aware of the context in which he is speaking.

Politics deals only with a part of our horizontal lives, our lives with the State and society. It does not deal with the vertical, nor should it. It is ill-equipped to do so. So we need to carefully think what it means to be a prophet from the wilderness in the political continuum that has conservatives on one side and progressives on the other. And, at this point, we should note the binary thinking Bryan is employing.

That taking on the role of the prophet carries with it some dangers and hazards. One is, to borrow the phraseology of Martin Luther King Jr. as he spoke against the Vietnam War, that start to believe that we have everything to teach politically minded unbelievers and nothing to learn from them. And while Bryan cites II Timothy 3:5 to warn us about the antagonists from both groups, I would see that and raise him Romans 2 where it talks about how the unbeliever sometimes acts more righteously than those who believe, or claim to, in God. So that when we consider Romans 2, we should start cooling, not turning off,  our prophetic jets. To combine lessons from the cited parts of  II Timothy 3 and Romans 2, we should learn when to ignore unbelievers and when to learn from them. That last part is underemphasized in much of the religiously conservative Christian world.

But something else calls on us to learn when to learn from unbelievers when exploring issues in the political world. We are suppose to live in a democracy. And if we consider what a democracy is in terms of a state of being and in terms of what Jefferson warned us about, we should work for a society where we don't use majority rule to oppress any minorities. That we should use our democratic processes to ensure that all different ethnic groups have an equal share in and of the state regardless of their size. What is inferred from that is that we Christians should not gather in our spiritually ideological ghettos apart from where the rest of the world thinks about and discusses politics. Rather, we should collaborate. And the proper word there is 'collaborate' rather than try to control. For as collaborators, we become equal participants with unbelievers. As those seeking control, we try to claim a place of supremacy over them.

Does Bryan disagree with what is written in the last few paragraphs here? I really can't say and that is because in writing his article, he left too much to the imagination.

Lies, Lies Everywhere With Plenty For One To Use

Justin Giboney (click here for a brief bio) has written an article posted on the Gospel Coalition website about the lies we tell ourselves about racism. In that article, he has two groups he wants to target: those who deny or minimize racism in America's past and/or present and those overstate the case of racism in America as exemplified by theories such as Critical Race Theory (CRT). In particular, the ties that critical theories like Critical Theory and CRT have to Post Modernism and Marxism are highlighted, but perhaps not always as one might expect (Click here to read the article).

What Giboney has in mind is to draw attention to the lies that the above mentioned groups tell themselves and others about racism in America to serve their agenda. For the group that minimizes racism in America's past and/or present, lies include the following:

• Racism is plays a very minimal part in the story of America
• Racism was eradicated with events like the end of slavery or Jim Crow laws or with reconstruction, and I could add the Civil Rights Movement
• That those who bring up racism are Marxists
• That 'Marxist barbarians' are waiting in the wings to bring destruction

The lies that some progressives who are battling racism in America include:

• Whiteness is the cause of all sins and pathologies
• One's class or race can tell us about a given person's character

Though Giboney pays more attention to the lies of those who minimize racism in America, we should note the issue about CRT. It's issue is whether or not it overstates its case against racism in America. And here we should note that CRT's working definition of racism is different than that of most people. For while most people, especially conservatives, think of racism as to be confided to the attitudes and actions of a given individual, CRT says something different. CRT acknowledges that the racial prejudice of an individual is involved in racism; but it adds to that structural and social components to the definition of racism. As a result, racism in America can only be by White against people of color because whites much have more say in determining the structure and cultural aspects of society than any other group does. Thus, though CRT acknowledges that blacks can have personal prejudice against whites, because the structural and social components of society are, for the most part, controlled by and favor whites, there are no structural and social components in society that oppress whites and thus the personal prejudice that any black person might have against whites does not qualify as racism. And thus, in America, CRT states that racism can only be exercised by whites against people of color despite the fact that people of color can have racial prejudice against whites (click here and there).

That point might show the claim that all sin is due to whiteness, a view attributed to some progressives by Giboney, might not be a valid claim. Regardless of the validity of the claim, Giboney failure to draw attention to the different working definition of racism by CRT is a serious flaw in his article.

What we might want to do here is to apply the same test to Giboney as he applies to those who minimize racism in America and those who hold to the critical theories. That is does Giboney hold to lies that bolster his views of the world. And here, we might want to check his view on Marxism because he makes several negative references to it.

Why would lying to himself about Marxism serve his interests? If we look at his associations with the And Campaign (see his bio and click here) and the Gospel Coalition, there seems to be a consistent denouncing of Marxism in the critical theories and an implied warning that one doesn't need to read Marxist materials to learn from them. That is because some from the Gospel Coalition, and possibly the And Campaign, have claimed that any good that Marxism has said social justice has already been said better by certain Christians and so there is no need to read it. 

I would invite people to read what Martin Luther King Jr. said about Marxism to see if it has anything valid for us to learn. Now here we should first note that King merged Marxism with the Communism practiced in the Soviet Union, something that many Marxists or those leaning toward Marx disagree with. Examples of those who disagree with that conflation would include Mikhail Gorbachev would object to regarding Stalin and his successors as socialists and Noam Chomsky would object to regarding Lenin as having ruled as a Marxist. 

Anyway, King regarded Marxism/Communism as evil. And yet, he acknowledged that it attempted to speak for justice. In fact, King believed that truth could not be found in neither Capitalism nor Communism, but that we need the best elements of both ideologies in order to better arrive at truth (click here, King's comments on Marxism begin on pg 92). We don't see Giboney treat Marxism as King did though his treatment of Marxism is certainly not as bad as others have treated it. So perhaps when Giboney describes Marxism as a 'real threat to truth and moral order,' Giboney is holding to at least a partial lie so that he can direct people to read from Christian sources only. Also, Giboney claims that Marxism tells lies to strengthen its position. But what lies is he referring to? 

The final point I would like to make here is that Giboney is too easily prone to call flaws in reasoning 'lies.' Such does not ask us to look for rational explanations for why an ideology or movement takes the approach it does. 

Here we should note that it is not uncommon for people who are reacting to longterm social injustices to respond to those injustices with a phobic reaction. By that I mean that in order not just to undo longterm social injustices, but to also try to prevent those injustices from occurring again respond phonically  And thus there is a fear in being able to distinguish between factors and variables that are coincidentally associated with a given injustice from those factors and variables that contribute to the injustice being addressed. The phobic reaction here is like the irrational fear a person who has been bitten by a dog might have to all dogs. Rather than learning to distinguish a dangerous dog from a dog that is not, those who have a phobic reaction to dogs fear all dogs and thus avoid taking chances on distinguishing threatening dogs from friendly dogs. 

Such an explanation for why ideologies and movements believe what Giboney might call lies gives those ideologies and movements some benefit of the doubt without having to agree with questionable beliefs.

Giboney has several valid points to make here and is worth reading. But it doesn't really provide an accurate description of CRT before examining whatever lies it might hold to. And that is a significant flaw in Giboney's article.

Is There A Difference Between Patriotism And Nationalism?

 The question of how much devotion a Christian should have to their own nation is asked by Christians and non-Christians alike. From the Christian perspective, this question has other questions that emanate from it. The most important question, however, becomes what Christian values should a Christian push onto his/her unbelieving neighbors? Another important question is about how much credit should a Christian give to their nation for the blessings they have.

From the above issue of devotion to one's nation comes two terms whose concepts are fluid because they are dependent on the points that a speaker or writer wants to make. The first term is nationalism. The second term is patriotism. The problem here is that according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, they can, at least in part, the same definition (click here and there).

Last month, Thomas Kidd (click here for a bio) from the Gospel Coalition wrote an article in an attempt to distinguish the two concepts in terms of how it relates to the Christian. And so he wrote an article on how Christian Patriotism and Christian Nationalism compare to each other. And as was previously mentioned, the definitions of patriotism and nationalism were made in the context of the points Kidd wanted to make (click here for the article).

From the very beginning, Kidd seeks to take a balanced approach on  Christian Patriotism and Christian Nationalism. This can immediately be seen in his labeling Christian Patriotism as being good in moderation and Christian Nationalism as being bad. For Christian Patriotism is good in moderation if it is defined as a biblicly mandated (at least by Romans 13)  'default support for one's nation.' But he also adds that 'intense patriotism' speaks to one being willing to sacrifice themselves for their nation.

Christian Nationalism in America, according to Kidd, is bad. For its working definition speaks of devotion to,either to America, the Republican Party, or a particular person. In any case, again, we have a term that is defined by the love one has for the nation or a particular object associated with the nation.

Kidd is also quick to remind us Christians that we are exiles on earth and that we should have a greater connection with believers from other nations than with unbelieving fellow Americans. 

Kidd goes on to note how Christian nationalism, or even just nationalism, has been a cause for conflicts and wars. For example, there were the religious wars in Europe. And the Cold War has been framed by some Christians as a conflict between the Christian West, or Christian America, and the atheistic Soviet Union. The abortion issue catapulted the association of the Republican Party with Christian Nationalism. And as leftist criticism of America's past grew, so too did a 'God and country' mentality in Christian Nationalists.

Kidd then asks a pertinent question: When does patriotism become nationalism or what is good become bad? What is also being asked in that question is when does patriotism become a form of idolatry? One possible sign mentioned is when one's own nation, America for example, is considered to be a main player in redemptive history. Another indicator is when we Christianize past unbelieving heroes of the nation. 

Kidd's article is good for what it says. But it leaves some major issues unaddressed. One such issue is to what extent, if any, should a Christian seek to impose Christian standards on one's own nation like America in order to make one's own nation more Christian? This issue has caused much unnecessary criticisms of the Gospel by unbelievers who took the 1st Amendment seriously as well as those who suffered abuse at the hands of overly zealous Christians.

We should also investigate how much Christian Nationalism contributes to racism both current and in the past. This is a pertinent question because, too many times, American Christianit has been also thought of as white Christianity because of the place of supremacy whites had over others in America.

But there is something missing here about the connections we all have as people. That missing ingredient arises earlier when we mentioned Kidd's view of how our connections with foreign Christians should exceed our connections with fellow American unbelievers. That missing something revolves around the question of whether we should we treat fellow Americans with greater preference to our fellow image bearers of God from other nations? Perhaps the answer to that question can become another indicator of whether our Christian Patriotism has morphed into a Christian Nationalism. Martin Luther King Jr talked about not regarding fellow image bearers of God as equals when he publicly came out against the Vietnam War.

 

 

 

1. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/christian-nationalism-patriotism/
2. https://www.baylor.edu/history/index.php?id=7728
   

Is This How Christianity Can Regain Its Cultural Groove?

Many religiously conservative Christians have felt a sharp and enduring pain from our faith having lost its place in culture and society, and thus our culture and society have lost its way. And part of that loss is an enhanced, which is sometimes by manipulation, anticipation of persecution and the generalization and magnification of a few small, socially hostile acts against individual Christians in America. Well-known, and deservedly so, Reformed theologian Tim Keller (click here for bio ) has recently written an article that gives suggestions on how we can reverse our fortunes. The title of this article actually does well in summarizing Keller's expecatations: How To Reach The West Again (click here for the article).

The article is well worth reading and interesting. But rather than try to give a point-by-point review of the article, I want to get right to the heart of the matter in terms of why Christianity is not where it use to be in culture and society. And then ask you the reader to read Keller's article to see if what I provide here helps make Keller's article a bit more complete.

First we should not compare our post-Christian culture and society with Christianity's position in the 1st century even though there are some similarities. Why? It is because while 1st century Christianity was basically a newborn in that it had yet done anything good or bad, Christianity's status in America is based on the loss of status and position and thus Christianity's current situation is more similar to Israel's exile in Babylon. That is because Christianity's new position is punishment for centuries of past and current sins just as Israel was finally punished for its centuries of sins.

What was Christianity's sins? It was that of dominance. And I can't help but believe that though there are comments made in Keller's article against trying to regain that dominance, that, in the end, that is what Keller is saying we should do only in new ways.

And one of the key problems with Keller's article is that though there are fleeting statements that indicate a recognition of that past dominance, there are no indications of being contrite for it.

What Keller's article seems not to appreciate is how the New Testament describes its expectations of society. This is done in a couple of passages that describe Church discipline. In both of those passages, society is described as being a mix of Christians and unbelievers with no hint of Christian dominance. In one sense, ancient Rome provides a partial model for how society should be according to the New Testament.  Rome is a partial model because as a pagan society, in that it recognized the existence of many gods, Rome showed much tolerance to non-Christian religions. But Rome was not a complete model because it became intolerant of Christianity's claims to exclusivity.

Thus, as religiously conservative Christians, we should welcome and work for a society where as many gods are recognized in the name of religious liberty and tolerance while calling all to repentance. And whether we should welcome such a society is not clearly enough stated in Keller's article though he is against political domination. What is missing is whether cultural and social marginalization is a natural result of what Keller is trying to promote.

Christianity is not the only victim of its continued attempts to dominate. Post Modernism is a partial result of that domination and thus those who have been influenced too much by Post Modernism are victims too. We should note that Post Modernism speaks more against Modernism than Pre Modernism to which Christianity belongs. Here we should note that Post Modernism is friendly to inclusive, not exclusive, religions.

So before we religiously conservative Christians (a.k.a., flaming fundamentalists) can regain a more credible voice, we need to openly acknowledge our failures of both the past and present. We need to take our own 'apology tour' before we can realistically expect unbelievers to even be interested in listening to us. What Keller says about our need to be servant-oriented is more than true. But without acknowledging our past failures, it will be more difficult to be servant-oriented and thus many will not be convinced that we have changed our ways.

One more point that is not exactly clear in Keller's article. That is in how we Christians should share this pagan society with unbelievers. Again, Keller does well to speak against wanting political dominance. But what should be the substitute? How can we both be salt and light to culture and society when we want both to call people to change while supporting the notion of a pagan society in the name of religious liberty?

One way is to learn how to share society as equals. And that means being politically, as well as culturally and socially, involved in sharing society with others as equals. And to do that, we must guard the equality of the other groups as if it was our own.

That means that we Christians most politically collaborate with unbelievers to do that. But to do that, we must also resist the siren call of tribalism. And that is especially true regarding political and ideological tribalism. To avoid tribalism, we cannot even imply any kind of relative utopia, especially in the name of Christ. To do that requires that we too strongly associate the Gospel with specific ideologies and that divides the Church because there will be real Christians who hold to other ideologies. And the moment we fall for some ideological or political tribalism, we have lost our prophetic voice that challenges all ideologies to repent from sin.

Hopefully these comments will make Keller's article more complete. But it is the reader who is the final judge for that. And to do that, one must read both Keller's article and this article.

What Is The New False Gospel

After some delays, we finally get to finish reviewing a 3 part series by Thabiti Anyabwile on Social Justice (click here for the article). And unfortunately, this last article serves as a bit of a disappointment because of its lack of depth.

In the article being reviewed, Anyabwile reviews the claims of Tom Ascol as he sounds a red alert alarm on what he sees the new threat/new gospel to be for the Church (click here to here his presentation). Ascol emphatically states that the new threat to and the new gospel for the church is social justice especially as it is taught in cultural Marxism. Ascol makes it sound like this threat is both wide if not deep. He makes it sound like social justice is invading most of our neighborhood churches.

To be specific, Ascol says that the influence of social justice and cultural Marxism is introducing godless ideologies that are dictating to us how we should view reality. From Marxism comes the notion that we divide the world into the oppressor groups and oppressed groups. Cultural Marxism redefines these groups from economic classes to marginalized groups of people. Thus, this new teaching is telling us to discard the old ways of ordering society. And it is teaching us to see the oppressor, straight white males who are cisgendered as the enemy who, along with his view of reality and authority structures, must be overthrown. And all of that is done in the name of equality according to social justice teachings
 
And though Anyabwile's response is accurate, it is shallow. Anyabwile answers Ascol's concerns by saying that there is a larger and more organized anti-social justice movement in the conservative churches than a social justice movement. In fact, Anyabwile states that there is no social justice movement in the conservative churches.  There might be some individuals who are involved, but there is certainly no organized movement in the conservative churches toward social justice. And from my experiences and observations, he right.

Thus, Ascol is crying wolf on whether the conservative churches are being threatened with social justice especially as it is approached from the cultural Marxist perspective. But such a response does little to review the claims made and perspective held by Ascol. That is what makes Anyabwile's response shallow.

What would be a better response to Ascol's alarm? First, we should look at what Ascol seems to be so scared of. His complaint is not just that there is some secular invasion of ideas into the Church, but how we look at reality from a Western Civilization point of view is being challenged. That means old ways of ordering societies, old authority structures, the place of white men as being oppressors, and Judeo-Christian values must be recognized and changed. The last item seems to be out of place because Judaism rejects the most basic of Christian values: the status of Jesus as being both God and man who came to save His people from their sins. So what Ascol must mean by Judeo-Christian values is God's law and how society must be ruled by that.

Second, what we see in Ascol's perspective is a canonization of the old status quo in which he grew up and a demonization of a possibly emerging status quo. Canonizing the way one grew up and demonizing the new that challenges much of what one grew up with is as old as the hills. But that itself does not really say what needs to be said about Ascol's views here. For what Ascol does is to approach both the old status quo and the new challenge from social justice from a cultural Marxist perspective in all-or-nothing way of thinking. That is what produces Ascol's canonization of the old status quo with its regard for Western Civilization and his demonization of challenges of the old status quo by social justice from a cultural Marxism perspective.

Thus, it is Ascol's all-or-nothing approach to both the old status quo and the new social justice view that is the problem. And if we compare Ascol's approach to the old status quo and to cultural Marxism with Martin Luther King Jr.'s approach to Marxism, we easily see why Anyabwile's review of Ascol is shallow and why Ascol overstates his case.

When King compared Marxism with the then status quo, he said the following: 'Historically capitalism failed to see the truth in collective enterprise and Marxism failed to see truth in individual enterprise.'  In other words, King does not take a black-white approach to either the then status quo or the challenge of Marxism. And citing William Temple, a former archbishop of Canterbury, King repeated his observation that Marxism is a 'Christian Heresy.' By that he meant that Marx had combined some essential truths of Christianity with beliefs that must be rejected by every Christian. But again, King is avoiding this all-or-nothing approach to either the then status quo or the Marxism of his day as exemplified in the communism of the Soviet Union (click here for the source).

Another way of approaching Ascol's point of view is to modify a statement King said while opposing the Vietnam War (click here for the source):

The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

If we replace the word 'Western' with a fill-in-the-black, can we not see the fault of Ascol's line of thought here. Certainly social justice and cultural Marxism has much to learn from Christianity. But are we daring to deny that that we religiously conservative Christians have things to learn from social justice and cultural Marxism? Or are we assuming, despite Church history and the problems that were so much a part of Western Civilization, that our knowledge of the Bible as well as our embracing of Western Civilization means that we have nothing to learn from social justice and cultural Marxism? Again, that question challenges us to not approach either the old status quo and cultural Marxism in an all-or-nothing manner.

Generally I like what Anyabwile writes. But his response to Ascol lacked depth and dependence on how others have responded to similar challenges. And just because Ascol has well overstated his case, that doesn't mean that we should ignore all of his warnings. But what we should challenge him to do is to look out for competing and threatening ideologies that come not from the new, but from the old status quo in which he grew up.



 

Why Should Christian Write About Social Justice?

Though the title for this article is not the same, it comes close to paraphrasing the title of an article written by Thabiti Anyabwile (click here for a short bio) and was posted on the Gospel Coalition website. This article is the first in a series of articles that Anyabwile has just written on social justice.

Anyabwile briefly describes several reasons why he is reluctantly starting a series of articles on the subject. The reasons are, for the most part, briefly explained in the article so this article will provide additional reasons for discussing social justice.

The first reason listed in Anyabwile's article about social justice (click here for the article) is that he has seen no progress. Just before mentioning that, Anyabwile described the subject as being contentious in the Christian community, one can assume the conservative Christian community that is. Thus it is a bit ambiguous what Anyabwile was referring to. Was he referring to the debate about social justice in the conservative Christian Church or was talking about the state of social justice in America?

At least I can't answer that question for sure but I can supply two reasons why the subject of social justice causes division within the conservative Christian Church. Both reasons have to do with what many conservative Christian leaders, leaders both in and out of the pulpit, have said about social justice. These leaders complain about the subject because some people have reduced the Gospel to that of working for social justice. Such is a legitimate concern but is not necessary consequence for Christians who are concerned about social justice.

Another reason why the subject of social justice arouses controversy is that some of those same leaders also point out that social justice was a stated concern of neither Jesus nor the Apostles. For the most part that is a true statement but such a statement seems to have eradicated the concern for social justice often proclaimed by the Old Testament prophets. In addition, a hard line approach that is based on the lack of attention Jesus and the Apostles showed the subject forgets the differences in context between the times of both Jesus and the Apostles and now. Jesus and the Apostles lived on earth during a time when the Gospel was unknown in most of the world and under the Roman Empire. We now have participatory societies via democracies in a world where the Gospel has been spread and where there is a history of nations having practiced atrocities and other injustices under the Christian banner.

In addition, social justice from a Christian perspective should not just attempt to comfort and/or deliver the victims, it should also be calling the victimizers to repentance--an idea that is often not addressed by conservative Christian leaders who oppose the Church from discussing social justice.

The second reason why Anyabwile has brought up the subject of social justice is that there are truth claims to be examined regarding the subject. Just as the Scriptures talk about earthly concerns such as history and science, the Scriptures have spoken about what is social justice and what isn't--though they have not discussed it exhaustively. By ignoring social justice, those truth claims are being ignored.

Another reason why Anyabwile wrote about the subject is because Christians who work for social justice or who even want to discuss it are often misrepresented. And the practice of misrepresenting them is not contained just with in America. Anyabwile lists several countries where this has either occurred or there was a fear that it would occur.

The final reason why Anyabwile is discussing the subject now is that he feels that he is personally ready to. And though that reason is personal, it is an important reason. We can say the right things, but if we don't say them in the right way not only can we sabotage our own efforts, we can self-righteously hurt others while trying to right a part of the world. A prayer I pray before engaging several activities is as follows: 'Lord, protect me and others from me.' Such a prayer helps me realize that I too can offend or hurt people in big or small ways. It is a prayer I wish I would have prayed much earlier in life.

What will be interesting when examining the series of article by Anyabwile on social justice is whether or not he will specifically discuss multiple areas of social justice. Some of those areas that need to be addressed when discussing social justice include racism, economic classism, and discrimination in society based on sexual orientation and/or identity.





References

1. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabiti-anyabwile/engage-social-justice-debate-now/
2. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/profile/thabiti-anyabwile/

The First Christians Were Not Socialists

Kevin DeYoung (click here for a bio) just wrote an article whose title strikes instant fear into the hearts of most religiously conservative Christians in America. The title of his article: Were The First Christians Socialists? Such a question raises the blood pressure of every good patriotic conservative American Christian because we all know that Socialism or Communism goes against their view of America. For their view of America centers on Capitalism, the Free Market, individualism, and speaking American English.

Now because the very first Christians shared everything in common, DeYoung felt compelled to address the subject. According to DeYoung, the first Christians were not Socialists, or even Communists (click here for his article). And DeYoung is correct in his assessment though perhaps not  for the reasons he specified.

DeYoung is correct, the very first Christians were not Socialists despite sharing all their possessions with each other. DeYoung goes on to say that neither were the very first Christians Capitalists either as far as we can tell. But then he grants Capitalism an indulgence that he does not share with Socialism/Communism. That indulgence states that we need to rely on Scriptural evidence other than explicit Biblical statements or specific examples provided by the very first Christians to determine if Capitalism is promoted by the Scriptures..

Now though DeYoung shows a bit more knowledge of Socialism/Communism than the average conservative American, he demonstrates that he has much to learn. What his article demonstrates about religiously conservative Christian Americans is their desire to use the Bible to enable Christians, if not everyone, to recover the Garden of Eden. Though they may not say that in those exact words. the moment they use the Scriptures to try to find what kind of economy would best meet the needs of people as they were created before the fall, they are looking to recover the Garden of Eden to some extent.

However, such a question itself may be at odds with the New Testament. After all, there is a danger in trying to use the Bible to sanctify one's preferred economic ideology. That danger is that by claiming that a particular and personally preferred school of economics is the Biblical choice, then one's Christianity becomes an avenue to self-worship, not the worship of God. That is because the Bible and the Christian faith become servants to a preferred sacred cow of one's own choosing.

How do we know that the First Christians were not Socialists or Communists, or Capitalist or whatever else? It simple. Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, and whatever else remains deal with economic or political-economic ideologies. What the New Testament is concerned with is to how to equip Christians to live as pure and reputable ambassadors of Christ who are always looking to enlist new citizens into Christ's Kingdom. The New Testament is not concerned with telling us how we can recover Eden.
 
Does that mean that Christians do not need to be concerned with political and/or economic ideologies and how they impact the world? Not at all, especially in these times. For though we don't have any examples of any First Christian endorsed ideologies or systems, our very placement in the world requires that we share society with unbelievers. So did the very First Christians. But unlike those First Christians, we live in a world where the Gospel has been spread throughout the world and we Americans live in a democratic political system that calls on us to participate with others. And thus the matter of how will we address political-economic ideologies and systems becomes mandatory for us religiously conservative Christians.

The above is said with one caveat: that though neither the New Testament tells us nor the First Christians demonstrated what kind of economic system we should have in the society that we share with unbelievers, we are called to speak out against the injustices practiced by any political-economic system by even, or especially, our favorite systems. Perhaps all of us will have our favorite political-economic systems, but there are two things we cannot do with those systems. First, we cannot say that our favorite system is endorsed by the Scriptures. Second, we cannot shy away from speaking against the injustices that our favorite systems promote or allow.

The above is the approach that DeYoung should have taken. He is more than correct in saying that the First Christians were not Socialists. He also shows that he is no opportunist by claiming that the First Christians belonged to some school of Capitalism. But in trying to show that the First Christians were not Socialists, he went out of his way to list the differences between how the First Christians lived and his understanding of Socialism or Communism.

DeYoung is correct in saying that if we can't make our case for a particular ideology or system from the Scriptures then we need to be upfront in correctly attributing the sources for our thinking to non-Scriptural sources such as practical considerations, history, or the Social Sciences. And overall, DeYoung's article is good and deserves to be read. It is that he could have taken a better approach in answering the question posed by the title of his article.










 

Ignorance Is A Terrible Witness

Any casual discussion on Critical Theory must first come to grips with its own seemingly contradictory existence. Critical Theory is a very dense and deep topic so how could a casual discussion of it exist? And any casual discussion on Critical Theory must immediately acknowledge the difference between Critical Theory and critical theory. The former refers to a specific group of intellectuals known as the Frankfurt School while the latter refers to opposition to domination and oppression inspecific circumstances where that opposition has a 'similar practical aim' as what was taught by those in the Frankfurt School (click here and refer to the first 3 paragraphs). 

Neil Shenvi (click here for a bio) and Pat Sawyer (click here for his cv) recently wrote an article posted in the Gospel Coalition website called The Incompatibility Of Critical Theory And Christianity (click here for the article). We should note that the article posted in the Gospel Coalition website is just another article written on Critical Thinking by both of these men.



The first thing we should note is that there are two versions of Critical Theory. There is Critical Theory in the narrow sense. That sense involves the thinking and teachings of those known as the Frankfurt School. And there is critical theory in the broader sense. That sense deals opposition to specific kinds of oppression provided that there is a general following of the philosophical and practical aims Critical Theory by that opposition. A noteworthy difference between the narrow sense and the broad sense of critical thinking is that the narrow sense of the term capitalizes the first letter of each part of the term while the broader sense does not.
 
The second thing we should note is that the title is both contradicted by parts of the article and says more that it is intended to. The title is potentially contradicted by the article's recognition of individual points made by Critical Theory. Those points include:

• Race is a social construct
• Institutions can spread ideas

At the same time, what is suggested by saying that Critical Theory and Christianity are incompatible depends in part by the word 'incompatible.' If that word is taken in its absolute sense, then noting some points of agreement with Critical Theory contradicts the title. Otherwise, the two writers are merely saying that there are too many difference between Christianity and Critical Theory for Christians to adopt or embrace a significant part of Critical Theory.

But there is something else that needs to be said here. The degree to which Christians can borrow from Critical Theory depends not as much on the Scriptures, as the writers seem to indicate, but on how Christians believe they should share a democratic society with unbelievers. If Christians believe that their faith or even themselves should hold a place of supremacy over society then the writers of this article are correct in saying that Critical Theory and Christianity are incompatible. That is because Critical Theory and Christianity work from different metanarratives and advocates of both sets of beliefs would be vying for society to be based on.

But what if Christians looked to share society with unbelievers as equals. Then society would be based on a collaboration of the thinking of Christianity, provided that the borrowed beliefs neither privileges a group nor oppresses any groups, and the views of unbelievers. Christians would then not be placed in this competitive role of trying to establish any part of Christianity to rule over society. We could be more relaxed in terms of what we borrow from other ideologies like Critical Thinking.

The Gospel Coalition website belongs to a group of Christians who are called Transformationalists. That to varying degrees, transformationalists want a place of supremacy for Christians by which they can control laws and cultural values according to our religious beliefs--I am a religiously conservative Christian and so I share their beliefs but not their desire to control. As a result, the notion of Christians sharing society as equals, which would be its role in Critical Theory's notion of a 'substantive democracy,' is truly foreign to Transformationalists. Even their Christian nemesis, 2KT advocates who disagree with the Transformationalists' thirst for control over society struggle with wanting to share society with unbelievers as equals.

The writers of the article are correct in noting that the metanarratives of Critical Theory and Christianity are different. But here we should note two things. First, that when society and culture were based on a Christian metanarrative, we had a great deal of domination and oppression. Second, a false metanarrative doesn't always lead to conclusions Christians can't accept. This leads us back to the point that how much Christians can feel comfortable in borrowing from ideologies like Critical Thinking depends on how we believe we should share society with others.

It should also be pointed out that the degree to which Christians can borrow from or embrace Critical Thinking is also partially controlled by the other ideologies that we hold to other than our faith. Those ideologies include Capitalism, belief in small government, Republican political thought, and American Exceptionalism. Those who grew up in religiously conservative Christian homes found those secular ideologies to be conflated with their Christian faith. And thus separating the ideologies one grew up with from one's faith can be a very tearing experience. So the degree to which one can borrow from or embrace Critical Theory might be, in the name of one's religion, controlled more by a Christian's secular beliefs than his or her religious beliefs.

We should also note that the New Testament never seems to endorse any kind of Christian control over society. That doesn't mean that Christians have no place in determining society's morals and values. Such a point doesn't silence Christians in society. What that point does is to limit how Christians share society with others to of being equals. 

No short article, such as the one written by Shenvi and Sawyer can adequately give an overview of Critical Theory. But that is the least of the problems that this article on Critical Theory written by Shenvi and Sawyer has. In the end, articles like the one commenting on Critical Theory sometimes reveal more about the Christian doing the reviewing the theory being reviewed. And I believe that has occurred in the article written above.

Shame: I Want To Live Without You

Shame is a painful emotional experience. It has become so painful that some are trying to redefine the human condition so that they can free themselves from shame's shackles and live without it. And that was recently the expressed concern of the board chairman of the Gospel Coalition, Kevin DeYoung (click here for a bio).

DeYoung laments over the recent modern attempts to define shame out of existence. He rightfully talks about its necessity in the Christian life because of our sinfulness and our need for feeling it for it drives to the cross (click here for his article).

However, DeYoung acknowledges that not all shame is Biblically-friendly shame. For he briefly mentions 'misplaced shame'--that is feeling unnecessary shame, Unnecessary shame is felt when we feel bad about things for which we have no responsibility or reason to feel responsible for. But then he quickly returns to a discussion of what he calls 'well-placed shame' and encourages people to feel its full effects.

The brief mention of misplaced shame indicates a recognition that today's avoidance of shame might be due to either the misuse of shame by past and present leaders or the wrongful employment of shame by sincere believers. And one hopes that is the case. Regardless of that possibility, DeYoung does not fully address legitimate reasons why some are avoiding shame at all costs.

We should note that DeYoung seems to define shame as negative feelings for having done something wrong. And that imprecise definition is one reason why he is not adequately addressing the misuses of shame and how they might contribute to the avoidance of it.

So to add to DeYoung's article on shame, a better working definition is needed. And here, if we check the Meriam-Webster Dictionary, we can discover both a good and bad definitions of shame. The good definition describes how we should feel when having failed God. The bad definition describes how we should not feel regardless of having failed God.
 
How does the Merriam-Webster Dictionary define the word 'shame'? What will be done here is to contrast the first two definitions (click here for the source):

1. a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety
2. a condition of humiliating disgrace or disrepute

There is a subtle difference between the two definitions. While the first definition makes no indication of referencing others as at least a partial reason for feeling pain, the second definition does. In other words, while the first definition describes how we might feel when reflecting on a failure without reference to or comparison with others, the second definition definitely talks about how our consciousness of others comes into play when feeling shame. The second definition indicates that a source for negative feelings comes from feeling inferior to others.

That second definition of shame is probably a reason why many of today's younger people seek to live a shame-free life. And when we look at the Scriptures, such an avoidance of shame should be viewed as unnecessary. For the feeling of such shame may, in most cases, not be a biblically sanctioned kind of shame. To make our case here, one only needs to turn to the parable of the two men praying (see Luke 18:9-14) where the tax collector, in contrast to the Pharisee, is overwhelmed with shame. But in expressing his contrition, he makes no mention of the Pharisee and how he had fallen short of the standards set by the Pharisee. Rather, his sadness was due solely to having only failed God.

Shame that revolves around feeling inferior to others, besides not really being a Biblical approved shame, often sabotages a person's attempts to repent. For such shame leads to a strong sense of alienation and a reluctance to reach out for help or even the inability to adequately admit one's failures. And thus it seems right that people should attempt to live without this kind of shame. The only shame here in avoiding this kind of shame is reducing the definition of shame to this kind of shame. And this kind of shame might lead to another reason why today's people are seeking to live a life without shame.

DeYoung fails to mention that, all to often, excessive shame is expected of people who have experienced moral failures. Now because of the seriousness of sin and God's holiness, some might look on sin as my youngest granddaughter views chocolate. For just as she believes that one cannot have too much chocolate, so some well-meaning fellow religiously conservative Christians believe that we can feel too much shame for our sins. But excessive shame too can sabotage attempts to change oneself.

We can experience excessive shame from what DeYoung calls misplaced-shame, or from the kind of shame that comes from feeling inferior to others, or from the efforts of others or ourselves to feel as much legitimate shame as possible. Excessive shame can end up being nothing more than an effort to punish ourselves to the extent as a way of compensating for our failures and wrongdoings.

When what was legitimately accepted in the past is wholly rejected by current generation, it is usually due to its misuse. We see that in Post Modernism where the metanarratives of both Pre Modernism and Modernism  have been totally rejected because both have been used to visit great injustices on people. Thus, whatever valid points found in those metanarratives are easily discarded along with what is false because of how they were used opportunistically to hurt and exploit people. So too, as we see many of today's people try to live without shame, it is all but certain that the Church, which deals with shame, has misused significantly causing people to feel either unnecessary shame or excessive shame.

There is really nothing terribly wrong with what's in DeYoung's article. His article is both an easy and worthwhile read. But he could have done a better job explaining why some people today seek to live shame-free lives.


 

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.



 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 13, 2017

December 5

The following comment is included as a blocked comment because the comments section for the blog fails to function correctly.

To Thomas Kidd and his blogpost describing the Masterpiece Cakeshop case being heard in the Supreme Court. That case revolves around the owner of the cake shop as having the right to deny providing services for a same-sex wedding because he views his cakes as a work of art and thus his decision to deny services to a same-sex wedding to be protected by the First Amendment. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

The problem I see with Phillips's argument is that it is an attempt to redefine one's place as a vendor in the marketplace. That would allow anyone to excuse themselves from the social contract that is applicable on all vendors by claiming to be something different than a vendor. And what follows excuse can eventually become a Jim Crow type of discrimination that bars whatever group is being targeted from participating in the marketplace as a consumer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec 12

To R. Scott Clark and his 2 part blogpost that describes where the Church is going. It consists of criticisms solely of those beliefs that lie outside of the one promoted by Reformed Theology. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I wanted to wait to respond to Part One (see https://heidelblog.net/2017/11/where-is-the-church-heading-part-1/) of this 2-part series til the second part was posted.

What I see in the article is this, there is an implicit view of infallibity of those who stay true to Reformed doctrines. Why say that? It is because in both articles, all of the negative attributes of today's Church can be attributed to those outside of the Reformed Faith whether they involve non-reformed Protestants, Roman Catholics, or heretics. This is unfortunate because of one of the directions in which the Church is going  is because of what its conservative elements that exist in Roman Church, in the truly Reformed Church, or the non-reformed Church are setting it to. That direction being referred to is not so much the fault of what is considered to be important tenets of the faith. The direction I am speaking of is the association that the conservative Church in America is making with conservative politics and Americanism.

We should note that once we call ourselves Christians, everything we do or say or fail to do or say becomes associated with the Gospel. So if Christians support today's Republican party platform, then everything in that platform which we support becomes associated with the Gospel to those both inside and outside the faith. That is why many, regardless of whether they are Christian or unbelievers, see hypocrisy in the Church's pro-life stand and its support for those items in the Republican Party's platform that threaten life (see https://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/10/12/fellow-white-christian-friends-i-wish-you-really-were-pro-life/  ). That hypocrisy when given time gives birth to dissonance and that dissonance when given time yields stumbling blocks for unbelievers who hear us preach the Gospel or for believers who are then tempted to stray from the faith.

We need to look at all that we, who hold to doctrinal expressions that we believe are the most biblical expressions, associate with the Gospel through our belonging to other groups including political and economic ideologies. For, from what I see, much of today's scorn by society for the Church has more to do with the associations we make than with the key doctrines we  preach to the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Mark David Hall and his blogpost on how the ACLU’s view of separation of Church & State  is wrong. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

Besides the false contention that America's founders were not deists--some were and some weren't--comes the failure to see that the main issue before us is not what the founders planned for our nation, but what the NT either says or does not say about how we should share society with others. Hints at how we are to do this exist in the Scriptures that deal with Church discipline (see Matthew 18:15-19 and I Corinthians 5). In neither of those passages are we told to bind those outside the Church with what the Church teaches about personal sin. At the same time, we have Jesus's explicit command not to 'lord it over' others as the Gentiles do (see Matthew 20:25-27).  
The combination of what was said and not said in those scriptures suggest how we are not to share society with others. We are not to dominate or force our views on others. We are not to subjugate those outside the Church to our views. And yet, because we religiously conservative Christians are given to authoritarianism, we often do not know how to turn off the authority switch when dealing with others. Thus we find ourselves treating others in society in ways not supported in the NT. And that is really the main issue that the above article deals with. This appeal to the faith of the founding fathers for forcing our faith on others is an authoritarian move.

As for the statement about the nonexistence of deism in America's founders, we should note that believing in general providence, as Franklin did, does not disqualify someone from being a deist. And removing all references to the supernatural, as Jefferson did in his version of the Bible, certainly removes one from the Christian faith.  Finally, the dismissive statement about the use of an inadequate number of statements made by Jefferson and Madison to promote separation of Church & State and the time those statements were made fails to account for how those statements were used in other legal documents.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 6, 2017

 When the first comment below was written, the article had a comment section though no comments were posted. That may no longer be the case.

Nov 14

To Kevin DeYoung and his blogpost on the recent revelations of the sexual sins of harassment  and molestation that accompany our public figures. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

As with other social sins, what we are seeing with the all of the sexual sins from harassment to molestation is an all-or-nothing approach to the the problem. For a long time, it was tolerated and now all forms of sexual misbehavior from an inappropriate sexual comment to blatant molestation are receiving the same degree of public condemnation. And with that all-or-nothing approach is practiced by a society that is very punitively oriented. And it is that reliance on punishment that all but guarantees the problem will continue at levels that are too high. For the all-or-nothing approach to punishment will inhibit people from admitting they need help in controlling their behavior. And the all-or-nothing approach to punishment will give others a sense of well-earned self-righteousness.

My attack on our misuse of punishment should not be interpreted as a desire to tolerate sexual harassment and molestation. Nor should it be construed as a rejection of ever using punishment in responding to these sexual sins. However, we need to address our overuse of punishment in society. Inappropriate sexual behavior is not the only problem behavior that is promoted by our faulty approach to punishment, racism is another sin that is enabled by our overuse of punishment.

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

Dec 4

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost that says because the Puritans survived by trade, we should follow their example and employ free market and trade polices. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

What can really be learned from the Puritans' experience with collectivism and trade? Can we conclude that collectivism never works because it didn't work for the Puritans? Those who know logic would look at the question as a ridiculously rhetorical question. For how does one example prove that collectivism never works? This is especially true since collectivism vs individualism exists on a continuum so that most nations  employ neither a purely individualistic free market systems nor a collectivist system. We should also note that there are a number of different collectivists systems. So what can we conclude from the Puritans who eventually used the Bible to justify the taking of land from the Native Americans they use to trade with?
What do the Puritans trade or market experiments teach us? They can only teach us how their trade and market practices worked for them in their particular situation. We should note that from near the beginning of the nation, the US embraced  protectionist trade policies and those policies helped the US develop industries that eventually became competitive with their counterparts from other nations. The US employed protectionist policies from its beginning as a sovereign state through WW II and even employed protectionist policies during the Reagan Administration.  So what does the above lesson teach us about free trade and markets in general?
We should note that free markets foster the idea of comparative advantage where each nation's economy should revolve around its current strengths. And such works great for developed nations like the US. The problem comes when a nation wants to develop for whatever reason. For development flies in the face of maintaining comparative advantage and protectionism allows that development to take place. To prohibit nations from employing protectionism in order to develop not only "kicks away the ladder," as some refer to it, that allowed currently advanced nations to grow and diversify their economies. It enforces an economic caste system on the developing countries. In other words, strict adherence to free trade only serves those nations that are wealthy and developed. And what we have to realize in the light of Johnson's attempt to use the Puritan's situation as an example for all to follow, the situation in which the Puritans and their Native American neighbors does not consist of the complex relationships that exist between developed and undeveloped nations in today's world.

Finally, we should note the difference between free markets and trade with Democracy. For the more that  Free markets and trade limit government intervention, then the more they limit democracy when a government is a working democracy. We should note that not all governments that profess to be democracies are actual democracies. An example showing how free markets and trade limit democracy can be seen in the WTO threat to put exorbitant sanctions on the US because the US used the democratic process to require meat manufactures to label the country of origin each product was from. Thus, the WTO worked against the democratically expressed wishes of the American people. Another example could have been seen if the US joined the TPP. For the TPP allowed corporations to sue governments if governments passed laws that were perceived as costing corporations profits. And those lawsuits would be heard not in a nation's court of laws, but in TPP tribunals. Also we should note that the coup that replaced a democratically elected leader in Chilé with a military dictator did so, in part, in order install a free market system in that nation. Such is another example of free markets butting heads with democracy. Of course, we should note that since the US has become more and more a free market nation, not only has wealth disparity in America increases, but the US is now classified by some as an oligarchy rather than a democracy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ).

We should note that the Puritans' relationship with its neighboring Native Americans up until the Puritans took land from them  did not show all fo the complex relationships that nations, both developed and undeveloped, can have. Thus, using the Puritans as a sole example for how we should act today while forgeting how our nation relied on protectionism in order to develop its industries is not conducive to employing sound logic.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost praying the profit system as the only viable economic system despite any injustices it incurs. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

The above article by Joe Carter is saying that because of the growth and development that the profit system enables, justice is no longer a relevant issue when determining economic policies. We should note that Carter is following the words of the economist Arnold King in saying that.

Yes, there are many problems with Carter's article. But perhaps, the greatest problem is seen when comparing what Carter says with a statement made by Martin Luther King Jr when he spoke against the Vietnam War (see  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm  ):

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.

We should compare this quote with what Carter is advocating because the criteria Carter is using is purely materialistic. This goes back to a comparison King made between Communism and Capitalism. While King denounce Lenin's materialism, he noted that Capitalism has its own kind of destructive materialism that is different than Lenin's. Carter's criteria for measuring the value of the profit system is purely materialistic and does not include the different kinds of harmful relationships, such as racism and war, that being so focused on things can cause between people. Thus, perhaps materialistic criteria should note be the only criteria used in determining the value of the profit system.

We could also add that we could employ the profit system in some areas of our economy and society rather than in all. Such would recognize that, like all other systems, the profit system carries tradeoffs and thus does not provide the sole solution to all of our economic problems.


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

To James Kalb and his blogpost that pits the Left against a sound understanding of human nature. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The first problem with Kalb's article is that it oversimplifies as much as it misidentifies the left. Hope and Change was not the left, it was liberal.  In addition, what the left observed about conservative Christianity is that it sides with wealth and power while claiming that it has all the answers to the ultimate questions of life.

The second problem with Kalb's article is that his conservatism becomes comparable with how Martin Luther King Jr saw the West when he spoke against the Vietnam War (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm   ):

The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

With the way Kalb writes about the left in the article above, could we not easily substitute the word 'conservative' for the word 'Western.' And if so, don't conservative who would agree with Kalb join him as he speaks just like the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying spoke (see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18%3A9-14&version=NIV)? When we consider all of the violence that has been visited on others in the name of Christ, can conservatives who believe they are the vanguards for Christianity honestly believe that they have everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them while maintaining a significant degree of mental health?

Finally, when we talk about the left and human nature, aren't also dealing with how we should share society with others? The Conservative answer to that question is that we must share society as having a privileged status that entitles them to exercise some degree of supremacy over others. But how does such a self- image not promote violence?

But we might also want to question the conservative grasp of reality. For isn't their emphasis on limited government merely code for saying that they want to elect a government they can ignore. In addition, doesn't their emphasis on limited government carry with it the idea that when human nature can contain such vast amounts of greed, that those with the most wealth and power require the least accountability? Isn't such an idea contradicted by history?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 8, 2017

Nov 3

To Jonathan Parnell and his blogpost on what Ministers can do when they suffer from ‘pathological self-criticism.’ This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website

I have been aware of pathological self-criticism because my home life, when I was a kid, fostered it. My father was an alcoholic and my mom had other problems. I know people who grew up in an abusive household who also suffer from pathological self-criticism.

Now the kind of self-criticism my examples refer to may not be the kind of self-criticism being referred to in the article above. But the self-criticism we experience is often pathological.

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

Nov 4

Should note that there is a test to make sure one is not a robot when entering a comment on the general Gospel Coalition site. The test for the comment below was to answer the following: 17 - 3 = . I typed in the answer of 14 and was notified that my answer was incorrect.

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that supports President Trump’s military ban on transgendered people. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

The problem with Carter's article here is that he merely claims that the presence of transgendered troops will be 'detrimental' to our military. He offers no evidence to support that claim. Thus, he is acting similarly to Trump when he issued the order because Trump issued that order without consulting the military.

And what if the presence of transgendered troops would hurt the morale of the troops, wouldn't we first have to determine how that harm takes place before deciding on whether we should pursue having transgendered troops in the military.

We should be able to study these issues seeing that transgendered troops have been serving in the military. In fact, there are thousands of transgendered troops serving in the military at the current time or very recently with the most famous being Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning. He turned over some  "confidential" information to Wikileaks including the cold-blooded murder of two journalists as they accompanied what seemed to be, for the most part, unarmed Iraqis. This murder, called Collateral Murder on the web, included not only one of our helicopter gunships firing at these Iraqi escorted journalists, the helicopter also fired at an Iraqi van that clearly was there to pick up the wounded. Such an attack is equivalent to terrorists attacking an ambulance.
Too many of us religiously conservative Christians (a.k.a, flaming fundamentalists) go beyond the preaching of the Scriptures about homosexuality. We go beyond that to blatantly show more than mere hostility to the LGBT community. And Trump's ban on transgendered troops, along with Carter's thoughts in the above article, are examples of that hostility despite the fact that Trump is not a religiously conservative Christian. He is, however, representing many of them with his ban.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nov 6

To Mark David Hall and his blogpost contesting the claim that many of our nation’s founding fathers were deists and thus Christianity had a very large role in our nation’s beginning. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog

Articles that try to present the founders of our nation as being overwhelmingly Christians fail in two areas. The first failure comes from the fact that more founders were deists than the person making the claim is willing to admit. Believing in providence doesn't necessarily make one a theist as opposed to a deist. Denying the supernatural, as say Jefferson did when he wrote his own version of the New Testament, doesn't point to any theism I know of unless, as in Jefferson's case, he is a believer in a completely different religion.

Second, just as there is a difference between the legal tax rate and the effective tax rate, so to there is a difference between one's confessed faith and the faith one is living out. And just as we saw with those who confessed to be Christian, their treatment of Native Americans by taking their land or by the owning slaves or embracing of white supremacy contradicted their confession of faith. Or we could look at the event that spurred the writing of The Constitution: Shays Rebellion. For that rebellion, and the accompanying dissent, was a rejection of the rule of the domestic financial elites, many of whom were well represented by our founding fathers who wrote The Constitution. What faith condones the valuing of profits over people as was supported by many of those writing the document? Or what faith makes one the object of their own worship as was done by claiming to be special or acting as if they were superior to others?

This urge to overly Christianize our founding fathers comes from the same source as what led Billy Graham to use celebrities in his crusades: it's a form of authoritarianism. It's a much lighter than other forms, but it still is a form of authoritarianism. For in authoritarianism, truth is determined by one's credentials more than the facts and logic involved in making a claim.  And that is what we have here in trying to overdo the association of the faith of our founders with the Christian faith. We are being told to either be less inclined to challenge our founders and what they wrote and said because they were Christians and/or give Christians a privileged position in society in the making of our laws and social mores because the founders were Christians.

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

Nov 7

To Joe Carter and his blogpost lamenting the fact that millennials are adopting more favorable views of communism and socialism. This appeared in the Acton blog

I think what is more troubling than the millennial view of communism and socialism is the conservative view of either communism or socialism. Why the conservative view is so troubling is because it makes monoliths out of both communism and socialism when, in reality, they are not. In fact, even though the above article stated there was a difference between communism and socialism, when reviewing the view of millennials of leftist leaders, only communist leaders are listed. In addition, Putin is listed as a communist leader even though the nation he leads is not a communist state. Yes, he was part of the communist regime by being a member of the KGB, but he has not enforced communism on Russia. Instead, he has instituted a government that is works and plays well with oligarchs. In addition, we should note the cozy relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and Putin.

What we should be aware of are the differences between Marx and those who ruled in his name. We should investigate whether tyrants like Lenin, Mao Zedong, Stalin, and so forth really followed Marx in how they ran their nations. There are many socialists of varying types that strongly contend that those leaders were not following Marx. At this point, the conservative definition of Marxism, communism, and socialism is of no help because of its tendency to conflate and define these isms as monoliths.  And in defining these isms as monoliths, all-or-nothing judgements are made on these isms rather tying to identify the good and bad points of each ism.

And from the parable of the two men praying, the zeroing in on atrocities committed in the name of Marx while forgetting the atrocities committed by the West whether or not the West includes the United States does not bode well for the spiritual state of the West. For just in the states, millions of Native Americans were ethnically cleansed from the land so that white Christians could have places to live. In addition, we need to remember the millions of Blacks who were killed either in the transport of Africans to America for slavery or in the efforts made to keep slaves in their place and we need to remember the many killed in order subjugate Blacks in society after the Civil War . Now those millions don't include the millions of people the US has killed in its questionable wars and interventions. The number of Vietnam civilians killed by the US during the Vietnam War is in the millions. And those millions don't include the millions of people killed as Western nations built their empires. And we should also note that Nazi Germany was a politically conservative western country that promoted private property, racism, nationalism, and traditional values--restoring traditional values was part of the Nazi Party's campaign platform. And Nazi Germany was also responsible for its own millions of deaths.
Carter's article ends up providing too little information to actually prove its point. To that extent, the information it does provides seems to use a fear out of ignorance to manipulate the opinions of its readers.