Almost everyone has seen the picture of the high school student, Nick Sandmann, wearing a MAGA hat and standing in the way of a Native American Vietnam Veteran, Nathan Phillips, who was playing a drum and chanting. According to a Huffington Post article (click here), Sandmann said he was trying to diffuse a tense situation where he claimed that Phillips was yelling at his friends to go home to Europe. In addition, the high school students with Sandmann had been taunted by protesters from another group.
According to Phillips, he put himself between the high school students and the group that was taunting the kids. Phillips claimed that he was simply trying to diffuse the situation (click here).
I've been to protests. I know what diffuses tense situations. And while leading a protest, I've had counter protesters try obstruct our protest. I don't find Sandmann's account to be credible according to my experiences. I don't see a Native American elder who is also a Vietnam trying to start a confrontation by yelling at the kids telling them to return to Europe. As a Vietnam Veteran, Phillips worked with and/or faught alongside White Americans in far more tense situations than the confrontation in D.C. In addition, the best way to diffuse a situation between another group and your own is to walk away to be passive. And one doesn't diffuse a situation by standing in a face to face confrontation with the group that is challenging you. Once when the group of protesters I was leading were obstructed, we silently waited and the police told those obstructing us to move. Not only did we not have do anything, we didn't need to say anything or challenge those obstructing us either.
But besides the above, Sandmann's school stated that it would investigate and punish the students responsible with possible expulsions. And that is what we want to address here.
Unfortunately, the American first response to most transgression is to punish. Part of that is because of our nation's obsession with individualism. Because of that obsession, transgressions are seen as occurring without any context. When those of us who are privileged read about some crime committed by someone who is not privileged, we often do not take the differences in our status into account when judging the crime. We usually judge those committing crimes as having the same advantages we do and thus we show no understanding for their actions.
In addition, there have been too many times when we Americans have equated punishment and justice. Too many of us believe that the best way to respond to crime is to inflict pain believing that a criminal only needs ecough pain to teach them not to commit another crime. Under such a scenario, justice is spelled 'revenge.' We see this in both criminal justice and in our lawsuits. Little thought is given to correcting behavior through education. And not that we should equate justice and education. But justice should be thought of as having
When Sandmann's school investigates the incident, it could very well be that they find that the confrontation between Sandmann and Phillips was due to an innocent misunderstanding and thus no punishment would be warranted. But should Sandmann's school find that Sandmann and some of the other students were showing gross disrespect for Philips, I don't think expulsion should be considered. Yes, there could be some punishment. But along with that, Sandmann's school should attempt to find ways for Sandmann and his friends to learn about Native Americans, their history, and their current plight. In other words, Sandmann's school's response to any wrongful behavior committed by Sandmann and his friends should include education along with any sanctions. In fact, his school's response should revolve much more around educating the students involved more than on punishing them. In fact, perhaps our criminal justice system should do the same with many kinds of nonviolent crimes.
References
www.flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com
(Only one person pictured is a Christian Fundamentalist. And so which one pictured is not like the others)
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
This World Is Not Big Enough For Both Exceptionalism And Justice, Amongst Other Things
In chapter 2 of his book, Fear's Empire: War, Terrorism, And Democracy (click here for book reference), the book's author, Benjamin Barber, makes two important points about American Exceptionalism. His first point is that America is not the only nation to claim to be exceptional. The French have done, the Germans have done it, and even the Swiss have done it, as well as much of the rest of the world. This makes claiming to be special normal.
His second point is that the belief of America's people in their own exceptionalism has kept us in a state of innocence of sorts regarding America's ventures both on this continent and in the rest of the world. By innocence, what is meant is that many of us Americans are either oblivious to or in denial of what America has really done to others both here and abroad. This innocence not only enables many us to justify America's use of force even when self-defense was not involved; it makes proving to us that our nation has been wrong near impossible when we believe that our nation has been following its original principles. That is because with America being so special, it normally has higher reasons than what other nations have for using force. It also allows other of us Americans to believe that America should practice some sort of isolationalism lest it becomes corrupted by the rest of the world.
The point here is that believing in the exceptionalism of our nation from its beginnings with the founding fathers allows us to assume our innocence rather than having to prove it.
What all of this shows is a link between the belief in the exceptionalism of one's own nation and the acceptance of the use of the rule of force. That is because those who believe in the exceptionalism of their own nation assume that how it treats others is just regardless of the evidence. In fact, to bring up evidence of wrongdoing to people who believe in the exceptionalism of their own nation is to sometimes court abuse if not martyrdom.
This lack of awareness of the sins and immoral acts practiced by one's own nation or, in short, its reliance on the rule of force rather than the rule of law is a normal condition for those who believe in exceptionalism. The rule of law is what the exceptional nation tries to force those inferior nations into following even when the rule of force is needed to do so.
Of course, to rely on the rule of force in a time when the proliferation of WMDs is inevitable is to do more than flirt with being bad, it also tests the ability of all nations to survive. That is because the continued use of the rule of force will invariably cause conflicts between nations or entities that have access to WMDs. And once there is the use of WMDs, there is no guaranteed way of stopping their use.
The problem is here is that belief in the exceptionalism of one's own nation does not just provide a hunting license on the rest of mankind, it is a siren call. Heeding its call brings makes people happy with themselves.
However, we must face at least two sets of realities here. Because believing in the exceptionalism of one's own nation is natural, it is realistic to expect from the people of many nations. It not only gives people a license to mistreat others with impunity even from one's conscience, it gives people a reason to feel secure and makes them feel good. But such a belief also not only allows for people to run roughshod over justice, it threatens everyone's future.
We especially see this belief in one's exceptionalism in those purists who call on their fellow countrymen to return to what made their naition so great. This shows another cost of believing in one's own exceptionalism: it shows a puritanical leaning that gives people to be intolerant of those not towing the original line.
We are soon entering a season when celebrating the specialness of America is not just in season, it is expected from all of its citizens. Yes, it is realistic to expect people to believe in their exceptionalism, but, again, there is another set of realities that come with believing in one's exceptionalism. It isn't that there is nothing to celebrate about America; it is whether we will balance that desire to celebrate our nation and ourselves with the knowledge of the negative realities that comes with too much celebration, a.k.a., the belief in our exceptionalism, brings to ourselves, our neighbors, and the world.
His second point is that the belief of America's people in their own exceptionalism has kept us in a state of innocence of sorts regarding America's ventures both on this continent and in the rest of the world. By innocence, what is meant is that many of us Americans are either oblivious to or in denial of what America has really done to others both here and abroad. This innocence not only enables many us to justify America's use of force even when self-defense was not involved; it makes proving to us that our nation has been wrong near impossible when we believe that our nation has been following its original principles. That is because with America being so special, it normally has higher reasons than what other nations have for using force. It also allows other of us Americans to believe that America should practice some sort of isolationalism lest it becomes corrupted by the rest of the world.
The point here is that believing in the exceptionalism of our nation from its beginnings with the founding fathers allows us to assume our innocence rather than having to prove it.
What all of this shows is a link between the belief in the exceptionalism of one's own nation and the acceptance of the use of the rule of force. That is because those who believe in the exceptionalism of their own nation assume that how it treats others is just regardless of the evidence. In fact, to bring up evidence of wrongdoing to people who believe in the exceptionalism of their own nation is to sometimes court abuse if not martyrdom.
This lack of awareness of the sins and immoral acts practiced by one's own nation or, in short, its reliance on the rule of force rather than the rule of law is a normal condition for those who believe in exceptionalism. The rule of law is what the exceptional nation tries to force those inferior nations into following even when the rule of force is needed to do so.
Of course, to rely on the rule of force in a time when the proliferation of WMDs is inevitable is to do more than flirt with being bad, it also tests the ability of all nations to survive. That is because the continued use of the rule of force will invariably cause conflicts between nations or entities that have access to WMDs. And once there is the use of WMDs, there is no guaranteed way of stopping their use.
The problem is here is that belief in the exceptionalism of one's own nation does not just provide a hunting license on the rest of mankind, it is a siren call. Heeding its call brings makes people happy with themselves.
However, we must face at least two sets of realities here. Because believing in the exceptionalism of one's own nation is natural, it is realistic to expect from the people of many nations. It not only gives people a license to mistreat others with impunity even from one's conscience, it gives people a reason to feel secure and makes them feel good. But such a belief also not only allows for people to run roughshod over justice, it threatens everyone's future.
We especially see this belief in one's exceptionalism in those purists who call on their fellow countrymen to return to what made their naition so great. This shows another cost of believing in one's own exceptionalism: it shows a puritanical leaning that gives people to be intolerant of those not towing the original line.
We are soon entering a season when celebrating the specialness of America is not just in season, it is expected from all of its citizens. Yes, it is realistic to expect people to believe in their exceptionalism, but, again, there is another set of realities that come with believing in one's exceptionalism. It isn't that there is nothing to celebrate about America; it is whether we will balance that desire to celebrate our nation and ourselves with the knowledge of the negative realities that comes with too much celebration, a.k.a., the belief in our exceptionalism, brings to ourselves, our neighbors, and the world.
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Comments Which Conservative Block From Their Blogs For March 16, 2016
March 2
To Joe Carter and his blogpost whether Christians should vote when we have factions in our political system. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
A few comments here. The Constitution allows for geographical factions to be represented in government. But since the vocation of a very large majority of our representatives are either public servants (politicians with no other skills), lawyers, or business people the vast majority of us go underrepresented or even unrepresented in government when we consider our vocational interests. Such a representation would have occurred in the USSR if Lenin had not dismantled the soviets because his lust for power and his paranoia. Soviets were workers' councils where the members are voted into the position by their peers and they used democratic processes to make decisions.
Second, yes the President is in charge of the military so that the gov't can provide the nation with security. But the President can cause the nation to be at risk in other ways than to not employ the military for our defense. When the President employs the military to intervene in other nations and control or even remove other governments, the President has placed us at risk for retaliation. That retaliation came true on 9-11. And the atrocities of 9-11 were a response for past American atrocities or our enabling of atrocities by others.
Finally, if we are going to make democracy work, we have to be able to escape many of the factions that separate us from others who are different. Otherwise, our factionalism becomes nothing more than tribalism and we, in various situations, adopt a gang warfare mentality that says what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Don Carson and his blogpost on whether we should call for justice. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
Anyone who has a sufficient understanding of their sins and their place before God, modifies how they call for justice. It is not necessary for such people to want vindication. In fact, such peope who call for justice are concerned with two things: the cessation of injustice and reconciliation.
Wanting reconciliation instead of vindication allows us to be more consistent in our call for justice. And our call for justice is important for two reasons. First the obtaining of justice ends the unrighteous suffering of ourselves and others. Second, to call for justice is not just to try to help the victim, it is an effort to call the victimizers to repentance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 5
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost vide on the job of government but is really about exalting the conservative view of American Exceptionalism. This appeared in Heidelblog
What I've noticed about American Conservatives is that there an obsession and compulsion to praise themselves. This is most evident here in the praising of The Constitution and its writers. And writers are often described mythologially as a monolith even though they were neither mythical nor a monolith. And surprisingly enough, such an approach to The Constitution and its writers is an authoritarian approach. It's authoritarian in that only those who hold to the Conservative mythological view of our founders and The Constitution are counted as valid interpreters of The Constitution while others can be ignored, at the least, or even counted as a saboteur and enemy of the state. So the exceptionalism that is being preached here is not just American Exceptionalism, it is the exceptionalism of conservatism.
We should note what prompted the writing of The Constitution: widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion. Don't believe me? All one has to do to perhaps see my point is to list all of the references to the militia that are in The Constitution and then add the 2nd Amendment. For the 2nd Amendment couches the right to bear arms in the context of the need for a militia. And, according to The Constitution, the militia was to be armed and supported by Congress, was under the leadership of the President, and its jobs were to repel invasions and put down insurrections.
The Constitutional debates yield even more information. For there was a new kind of aristocracy that was to be supported by The Constitution. This new kind of aristocracy was not based on the privileges provided by one's birth. Rather it was based on one's economic class. And what the writers of The Constitution wanted to do with its document was to preserve the status quo for the benefit of the landed interests. Here we should note that for all of the bragging of the exceptional nature of our founding fathers and The Constitution, the majority were slaveholders who wanted to expand westward regardless of the fact that such would mean the continued displacement of Native Americans. Now if we add to that that only 5% of the population could vote after the ratification of The Constitution and that 55 consisted of landowners, one has to wonder how any group could put our founding fathers on the pedestal that the Conservatives have when they engaged in ethnic cleansing, holding slaves, and restricting the right to vote. In fact, It was Madison who expressed fear at the thought of elections being opened up to all classes of people in England. He expressed that fear during the Constitutional debates.
Those who have embraced the exceptionalism of conservatism, because of conservatism's constant practice of self-exaltation have most probably joined a cult. And those Christians who have joined this cult can now be considered to be polytheists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 14
To Joe Carter and his blogpost criticizing the Georgia governor’s attempt to use the scriptures to show that Christian businesses should be allowed to refuse to provide goods and services to same-sex marriages. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
With the line of thought employed by Carter here, then Christians opposing integration during Jim Crow for religious reasons had their consciences wrongfully infringed on when the gov't worked to end Jim Crow.
We have to realize that in society, the conscience has only a sphere of sovereignty, it is not autonomous. And what is and is not included in that sphere of the conscience should be determined on a case by case basis. Certainly, religion should not be used to violate the legitimate rights of others. Some would point out the abortion issue and a women's right to choose as an objection to that line of thinking. The problem there is that such an objection assumes that the unborn have no rights. And thus once recognizing that the legitimate rights of the unborn, then the state should have the right to protect those rights against the individual choices based on conscience made by those seeking abortion.
It is one thing if the state was protecting religious institutions from having to provide public services to those functions that it could not participate in in good conscience. But that isn't the case here. The issue here is whether Christians business owners have the right to deny goods and services to same-sex marriages, not just weddings, in a Capitalist economy? Here, Christian business owners need to adequately explain why such participation is a true violation of conscience and not an attempt to marginalize the LGBT community in society. So far, I have not heard any legitimate explanations that show it is a true violation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 15
To Denny Burk and his blogpost citing Russell Moore’s voting philosophy which consisted of voting for 3rd party candidates when the candidates from the 2 major parties offer no legitimate moral option. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.
Though I don't fully agree with Moore's approach,I respect it for it shows independence and conviction. And we need more truely independent voters like Moore.
Though I am pro-life, I no longer use a stand on abortion litmus test in voting. Why? Because tthere are multiple issues that should be associated with pro-life that are not. With some of these issues, at least one of the alternatives would move us closer to destroying the world. And to me, if we wreck the world by waging war or destoying the environment, abortion becomes a moot issue. So unless candidates become more consistently pro-life, I can't use the aborition litmus test in voting.
In addition, to make the judgement seat of Christ our #1 concern in voting turns our vision inwards. What will happen to me if I vote for candidate x or candidate y. I think we need to turn our vision outward to see how candidates x or y's election will hurt or help people, especially the multiple varieties of vulnerable people, should determine how we should vote and resign ourselves to whatever judgment God gives..
Finally, the word on my street is that conservative voters have no credibility when it comes to speaking about opposing abortion with pro-choice advocates. The reason for that is consistency. So perhaps it is necessary in order to effectively bring an anti-elective abortion message to more people that we put it on the backburner for now and wait until we show more consistency in our pro-life convictions before making abortion an election issue again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost citing an article that says all forms of socialism end up with the same tyrannical result as was seen in Stalin’s Russia. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.
Dr. Clark,
To treat socialism as a monolith, as the article you referenced does, is ignorance for some, but not for all. To ignore the criticisms that socialists had of Lenin's model of government in order to group all socialists together so one can conclude that Stalin's gov't is the destination of all forms of socialism is to deliberately ignore the different forms of Socialism that has been tried and discussed. And limiting one's sources on Socialism to just its antagonists is simply intellectually dishonest.
Yes, there have been forms of socialism that have led to tyranny. For example, when Iran's (1953) democratically elected leader Mossadeg moved to nationalize oil resources, both England and the US orchestrated a coup that replaced Mossadeg with a brutal tyrant, the Shah. When Chile's(1973) democratically elected leader moved to nationalize certain industries, the US orchestrated a military coup to install the tyrant General Pinochet as its leader. Pinochet would later be indicted for crimes against humanity but died before he could be tried. When Guatemala's (1954) democratically elected leader Jacobo Arbenz pushed land reform, the US orchestrated a coup that installed the military dictator Carlos Armos. When it was possible that Greece's 1967 election could have produced a left-leaning government, Colonel Papadopoulos used a NATO plan designed to keep Greece from falling to communism to orchestrate a coup prior to the election so that a military junta would rule Greece. BTW, one should read the LBJ quote that was part of the conversation between the Greek PM who was in power before the coup (see http://www.ahistoryofgreece.com/junta.htm ).
Of course anti-Capitalists experiments like the Paris Commune and the Spanish Revolution serve as stark counterexamples to the claim that Socialism always leads to a Stalin type tyrannical regime. So do certain forms of Socialism such as Libertarian Socialism. Libertarian Socialism does not support a central state government.
But what is even more disengenous than what was written in the article referenced is that Sanders has carefully equated his idea of Socialism with FDR's New Deal. If FDR's presidency could be called Socialist, then the result of FDR's programs contradict the basic claim made by the article referenced. But what we have seen instead is a more gradual approach to the trend established above. We are now classified as a oligarchy, not a democracy. And part of that oligarchy has been a move away from FDR's programs to what existed before (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ) because such programs interfere with state Capitalism--something Eisenhower warned us against when he spoke against the Military Industrial Complex.
At Westminster, we were constantly challenged to go to the original sources to learn about what was being taught. But such a principle doesn't apply on this board when talking about Socialism. And the information is easily available. One could read Rosa Luxembourg, Anton Pannekoek, Noam Chomsky, and others to see what Socialists are saying for themselves. The road chosen by this board is to remain insular and only read Socialism's antagonists to learn about Socialism. Of course, doing so is like investigating Christianity by only talking with Bill Maher.
Quite simply, the article this post referenced is intellectually dishonest. And if I was a nonChristian, it would give me grounds for not believing any gospel preached by you since you refuse to go to original sources to see what Socialists say for themselves. If you were to do that, you will find a variety of views of Socialism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how increasing economic freedom can reduce human trafficking. This appeared in the Acton blog.
There is no doubt that greater financial opportunities can lead to less human trafficking. On the other hand, greater economic freedom isn't always used to increase the flourishing of all people. Some economic freedom, such as a relaxation of labor or environmental laws, allows the beneficiaries of economic freedom to exploit others. Allowing employers to pay employees poverty wages is an economic freedom for the employer which does not help the employee. Allowing owners to offshore jobs can bring economic freedom to owners but that freedom is used to take advantage of places with inadequate regulations and laws. In addition, allowing economic freedom for some can also mean excusing owners who benefit the most from infrastructure from paying taxes to maintain that infrastructure. We should also note that some who have become victims of trafficking were lured into captivity by the promise of economic opportunity.
IN short, to talk about economic freedom in general as a tool to help people escape dire circumstances is very similar to talking about reducing regulations to help businesses. The general concept is too ambiguous to be meaningful and thus what is needed is not talk about increasing economic freedom in general, but talk about whose economic freedom is being created and what specific freedoms are being afforded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost containing a video presentation by William Voegeli on Government growing too big by trying to provide too much for its people. This appeared in the Acton Blog
This presentation is rather intellectually dishonest in a couple of ways. When talking about the government intended by our founders, we need to realize that since The Constitution was written in response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion, it was written to strengthen the Federal government by increasing its ability to respond to future rebellions that were challenging the status quo. One only needs to read all of the references to the militia made in The Constitution to see substantial evidence that would support that interpretation.
In addition, while the presentation talks about the growth in the government outlay for social benefits, the two largest social outlays are self-funded: Social Security and Medicare. In fact, Social Security is the biggest holder of our National Debt. And cutting Medicare expenses has been hampered by Federal law that prohibits the from negotiating on pharmaceutical products. The prices of our drugs cannot be explained by R&D costs since bulk of those costs are paid for by taxes that fund the research performed by the NIH. Rather, the pharmaceutical prices are there to allow pharmaceutical companies to provide an ever growing ROI for its shareholders. This is what the price gouging of opportunists like Martin Shkreli points out.
In addition, what is not mentioned at all in terms of the growing percentage of government spending in relation to our GDP is the prosecution of unfunded wars such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, Chalmers Johnson pointed out in around 2008 that the total US spending on defense, which is well distributed among several federal budges such as the DOD, Treasury, and the Atomic Energy Agency to name a few totals over $1 trillion. Why was that never mentioned? And another omission is how our Federal gov't continues to support our financial institutions in ways that allow these institutions to significantly increase profits.
It seems that the conservative approach to discussing big government is to lay the blame for such government at the hands of the vulnerable with many of those vulnerable having been victims of our economic system. Such is morally wrong and the way it is discussed is intellectually dishonest.
Finally, we should note that government is like love in one way: size doesn't matter, fidelity does. A small impotent government is has harmful to the population as a large government whose first love consists of certain private sector elites--this is commonly called Crony Capitalism. Government should be big enough to protect the people from both internal and external threats to justice. And people living in poverty provide examples of injustice especially when that poverty is caused by exploitation and the hoarding of wealth.
We should note that here in America, the Conservative Church is coming alongside of those with wealth and power just as the Roman Church did in France and Spain prior to their Revolutions and the Orthodox Church did in Russia prior to its Revolution. The protection of wealth and power by the Church caused the Church and its Gospel to be despised by those seeking revolution. Will the Conservative Church repeat an ugly part of Church history? Only time will tell though we should note that with time running out, it looks like it will.
To Joe Carter and his blogpost whether Christians should vote when we have factions in our political system. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
A few comments here. The Constitution allows for geographical factions to be represented in government. But since the vocation of a very large majority of our representatives are either public servants (politicians with no other skills), lawyers, or business people the vast majority of us go underrepresented or even unrepresented in government when we consider our vocational interests. Such a representation would have occurred in the USSR if Lenin had not dismantled the soviets because his lust for power and his paranoia. Soviets were workers' councils where the members are voted into the position by their peers and they used democratic processes to make decisions.
Second, yes the President is in charge of the military so that the gov't can provide the nation with security. But the President can cause the nation to be at risk in other ways than to not employ the military for our defense. When the President employs the military to intervene in other nations and control or even remove other governments, the President has placed us at risk for retaliation. That retaliation came true on 9-11. And the atrocities of 9-11 were a response for past American atrocities or our enabling of atrocities by others.
Finally, if we are going to make democracy work, we have to be able to escape many of the factions that separate us from others who are different. Otherwise, our factionalism becomes nothing more than tribalism and we, in various situations, adopt a gang warfare mentality that says what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Don Carson and his blogpost on whether we should call for justice. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
Anyone who has a sufficient understanding of their sins and their place before God, modifies how they call for justice. It is not necessary for such people to want vindication. In fact, such peope who call for justice are concerned with two things: the cessation of injustice and reconciliation.
Wanting reconciliation instead of vindication allows us to be more consistent in our call for justice. And our call for justice is important for two reasons. First the obtaining of justice ends the unrighteous suffering of ourselves and others. Second, to call for justice is not just to try to help the victim, it is an effort to call the victimizers to repentance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 5
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost vide on the job of government but is really about exalting the conservative view of American Exceptionalism. This appeared in Heidelblog
What I've noticed about American Conservatives is that there an obsession and compulsion to praise themselves. This is most evident here in the praising of The Constitution and its writers. And writers are often described mythologially as a monolith even though they were neither mythical nor a monolith. And surprisingly enough, such an approach to The Constitution and its writers is an authoritarian approach. It's authoritarian in that only those who hold to the Conservative mythological view of our founders and The Constitution are counted as valid interpreters of The Constitution while others can be ignored, at the least, or even counted as a saboteur and enemy of the state. So the exceptionalism that is being preached here is not just American Exceptionalism, it is the exceptionalism of conservatism.
We should note what prompted the writing of The Constitution: widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion. Don't believe me? All one has to do to perhaps see my point is to list all of the references to the militia that are in The Constitution and then add the 2nd Amendment. For the 2nd Amendment couches the right to bear arms in the context of the need for a militia. And, according to The Constitution, the militia was to be armed and supported by Congress, was under the leadership of the President, and its jobs were to repel invasions and put down insurrections.
The Constitutional debates yield even more information. For there was a new kind of aristocracy that was to be supported by The Constitution. This new kind of aristocracy was not based on the privileges provided by one's birth. Rather it was based on one's economic class. And what the writers of The Constitution wanted to do with its document was to preserve the status quo for the benefit of the landed interests. Here we should note that for all of the bragging of the exceptional nature of our founding fathers and The Constitution, the majority were slaveholders who wanted to expand westward regardless of the fact that such would mean the continued displacement of Native Americans. Now if we add to that that only 5% of the population could vote after the ratification of The Constitution and that 55 consisted of landowners, one has to wonder how any group could put our founding fathers on the pedestal that the Conservatives have when they engaged in ethnic cleansing, holding slaves, and restricting the right to vote. In fact, It was Madison who expressed fear at the thought of elections being opened up to all classes of people in England. He expressed that fear during the Constitutional debates.
Those who have embraced the exceptionalism of conservatism, because of conservatism's constant practice of self-exaltation have most probably joined a cult. And those Christians who have joined this cult can now be considered to be polytheists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 14
To Joe Carter and his blogpost criticizing the Georgia governor’s attempt to use the scriptures to show that Christian businesses should be allowed to refuse to provide goods and services to same-sex marriages. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
With the line of thought employed by Carter here, then Christians opposing integration during Jim Crow for religious reasons had their consciences wrongfully infringed on when the gov't worked to end Jim Crow.
We have to realize that in society, the conscience has only a sphere of sovereignty, it is not autonomous. And what is and is not included in that sphere of the conscience should be determined on a case by case basis. Certainly, religion should not be used to violate the legitimate rights of others. Some would point out the abortion issue and a women's right to choose as an objection to that line of thinking. The problem there is that such an objection assumes that the unborn have no rights. And thus once recognizing that the legitimate rights of the unborn, then the state should have the right to protect those rights against the individual choices based on conscience made by those seeking abortion.
It is one thing if the state was protecting religious institutions from having to provide public services to those functions that it could not participate in in good conscience. But that isn't the case here. The issue here is whether Christians business owners have the right to deny goods and services to same-sex marriages, not just weddings, in a Capitalist economy? Here, Christian business owners need to adequately explain why such participation is a true violation of conscience and not an attempt to marginalize the LGBT community in society. So far, I have not heard any legitimate explanations that show it is a true violation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 15
To Denny Burk and his blogpost citing Russell Moore’s voting philosophy which consisted of voting for 3rd party candidates when the candidates from the 2 major parties offer no legitimate moral option. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.
Though I don't fully agree with Moore's approach,I respect it for it shows independence and conviction. And we need more truely independent voters like Moore.
Though I am pro-life, I no longer use a stand on abortion litmus test in voting. Why? Because tthere are multiple issues that should be associated with pro-life that are not. With some of these issues, at least one of the alternatives would move us closer to destroying the world. And to me, if we wreck the world by waging war or destoying the environment, abortion becomes a moot issue. So unless candidates become more consistently pro-life, I can't use the aborition litmus test in voting.
In addition, to make the judgement seat of Christ our #1 concern in voting turns our vision inwards. What will happen to me if I vote for candidate x or candidate y. I think we need to turn our vision outward to see how candidates x or y's election will hurt or help people, especially the multiple varieties of vulnerable people, should determine how we should vote and resign ourselves to whatever judgment God gives..
Finally, the word on my street is that conservative voters have no credibility when it comes to speaking about opposing abortion with pro-choice advocates. The reason for that is consistency. So perhaps it is necessary in order to effectively bring an anti-elective abortion message to more people that we put it on the backburner for now and wait until we show more consistency in our pro-life convictions before making abortion an election issue again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost citing an article that says all forms of socialism end up with the same tyrannical result as was seen in Stalin’s Russia. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.
Dr. Clark,
To treat socialism as a monolith, as the article you referenced does, is ignorance for some, but not for all. To ignore the criticisms that socialists had of Lenin's model of government in order to group all socialists together so one can conclude that Stalin's gov't is the destination of all forms of socialism is to deliberately ignore the different forms of Socialism that has been tried and discussed. And limiting one's sources on Socialism to just its antagonists is simply intellectually dishonest.
Yes, there have been forms of socialism that have led to tyranny. For example, when Iran's (1953) democratically elected leader Mossadeg moved to nationalize oil resources, both England and the US orchestrated a coup that replaced Mossadeg with a brutal tyrant, the Shah. When Chile's(1973) democratically elected leader moved to nationalize certain industries, the US orchestrated a military coup to install the tyrant General Pinochet as its leader. Pinochet would later be indicted for crimes against humanity but died before he could be tried. When Guatemala's (1954) democratically elected leader Jacobo Arbenz pushed land reform, the US orchestrated a coup that installed the military dictator Carlos Armos. When it was possible that Greece's 1967 election could have produced a left-leaning government, Colonel Papadopoulos used a NATO plan designed to keep Greece from falling to communism to orchestrate a coup prior to the election so that a military junta would rule Greece. BTW, one should read the LBJ quote that was part of the conversation between the Greek PM who was in power before the coup (see http://www.ahistoryofgreece.com/junta.htm ).
Of course anti-Capitalists experiments like the Paris Commune and the Spanish Revolution serve as stark counterexamples to the claim that Socialism always leads to a Stalin type tyrannical regime. So do certain forms of Socialism such as Libertarian Socialism. Libertarian Socialism does not support a central state government.
But what is even more disengenous than what was written in the article referenced is that Sanders has carefully equated his idea of Socialism with FDR's New Deal. If FDR's presidency could be called Socialist, then the result of FDR's programs contradict the basic claim made by the article referenced. But what we have seen instead is a more gradual approach to the trend established above. We are now classified as a oligarchy, not a democracy. And part of that oligarchy has been a move away from FDR's programs to what existed before (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ) because such programs interfere with state Capitalism--something Eisenhower warned us against when he spoke against the Military Industrial Complex.
At Westminster, we were constantly challenged to go to the original sources to learn about what was being taught. But such a principle doesn't apply on this board when talking about Socialism. And the information is easily available. One could read Rosa Luxembourg, Anton Pannekoek, Noam Chomsky, and others to see what Socialists are saying for themselves. The road chosen by this board is to remain insular and only read Socialism's antagonists to learn about Socialism. Of course, doing so is like investigating Christianity by only talking with Bill Maher.
Quite simply, the article this post referenced is intellectually dishonest. And if I was a nonChristian, it would give me grounds for not believing any gospel preached by you since you refuse to go to original sources to see what Socialists say for themselves. If you were to do that, you will find a variety of views of Socialism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how increasing economic freedom can reduce human trafficking. This appeared in the Acton blog.
There is no doubt that greater financial opportunities can lead to less human trafficking. On the other hand, greater economic freedom isn't always used to increase the flourishing of all people. Some economic freedom, such as a relaxation of labor or environmental laws, allows the beneficiaries of economic freedom to exploit others. Allowing employers to pay employees poverty wages is an economic freedom for the employer which does not help the employee. Allowing owners to offshore jobs can bring economic freedom to owners but that freedom is used to take advantage of places with inadequate regulations and laws. In addition, allowing economic freedom for some can also mean excusing owners who benefit the most from infrastructure from paying taxes to maintain that infrastructure. We should also note that some who have become victims of trafficking were lured into captivity by the promise of economic opportunity.
IN short, to talk about economic freedom in general as a tool to help people escape dire circumstances is very similar to talking about reducing regulations to help businesses. The general concept is too ambiguous to be meaningful and thus what is needed is not talk about increasing economic freedom in general, but talk about whose economic freedom is being created and what specific freedoms are being afforded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his blogpost containing a video presentation by William Voegeli on Government growing too big by trying to provide too much for its people. This appeared in the Acton Blog
This presentation is rather intellectually dishonest in a couple of ways. When talking about the government intended by our founders, we need to realize that since The Constitution was written in response to widespread dissent and Shays Rebellion, it was written to strengthen the Federal government by increasing its ability to respond to future rebellions that were challenging the status quo. One only needs to read all of the references to the militia made in The Constitution to see substantial evidence that would support that interpretation.
In addition, while the presentation talks about the growth in the government outlay for social benefits, the two largest social outlays are self-funded: Social Security and Medicare. In fact, Social Security is the biggest holder of our National Debt. And cutting Medicare expenses has been hampered by Federal law that prohibits the from negotiating on pharmaceutical products. The prices of our drugs cannot be explained by R&D costs since bulk of those costs are paid for by taxes that fund the research performed by the NIH. Rather, the pharmaceutical prices are there to allow pharmaceutical companies to provide an ever growing ROI for its shareholders. This is what the price gouging of opportunists like Martin Shkreli points out.
In addition, what is not mentioned at all in terms of the growing percentage of government spending in relation to our GDP is the prosecution of unfunded wars such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, Chalmers Johnson pointed out in around 2008 that the total US spending on defense, which is well distributed among several federal budges such as the DOD, Treasury, and the Atomic Energy Agency to name a few totals over $1 trillion. Why was that never mentioned? And another omission is how our Federal gov't continues to support our financial institutions in ways that allow these institutions to significantly increase profits.
It seems that the conservative approach to discussing big government is to lay the blame for such government at the hands of the vulnerable with many of those vulnerable having been victims of our economic system. Such is morally wrong and the way it is discussed is intellectually dishonest.
Finally, we should note that government is like love in one way: size doesn't matter, fidelity does. A small impotent government is has harmful to the population as a large government whose first love consists of certain private sector elites--this is commonly called Crony Capitalism. Government should be big enough to protect the people from both internal and external threats to justice. And people living in poverty provide examples of injustice especially when that poverty is caused by exploitation and the hoarding of wealth.
We should note that here in America, the Conservative Church is coming alongside of those with wealth and power just as the Roman Church did in France and Spain prior to their Revolutions and the Orthodox Church did in Russia prior to its Revolution. The protection of wealth and power by the Church caused the Church and its Gospel to be despised by those seeking revolution. Will the Conservative Church repeat an ugly part of Church history? Only time will tell though we should note that with time running out, it looks like it will.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 3, 2016
Jan 28
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Tucker Carlson that both declares Trump’s use of outrageous speech is right and necessary for debates and the restraint of speech is why our national debates are ‘useless.’ This appeared in Heidelblog.
Then again, self-restraint in speech can indicate a character quality in a person who will be in charge of the most powerful military in the world.
As for Carlson's view, I believe it is a bit backwards. The reason why our debates are stilted and useless is due to the loss of self-control in speech. That loss isn't necessarily seen in the absence of outrageous words, but in choice to attack others rather than address the issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 1
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how Christians can be single issue voters when justice is the issue. And that just because a candidate opposes abortion doesn’t mean that the candidate is consistently pro-life. On the other hand, he cannot believe that a candidate who is pro-choice can care about life and dignity in other situations such as the plight of the children in Darfur. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
Carter's one issue of justice is a worthy issue on which to vote for candidates--that is in principle. The real question will be how it is implemented. And while in one paragraph, he states that a candidate who opposes abortion may not be consistently pro-life. And so we need to find out other policies this candidate has proposed for other situations in which his regard for human dignity would be tested. And all of this is well and good so far.
But in the paragraph that follows the one asking us to test an anti-abortion candidate's consistency in being pro-life, he says:
Here Carter is saying that if a candidate supports elective abortion, he has no reason to believe that the candidate cares about the plight of others whose human dignity is being severely compromised. So Carter proposes that we use one way of reasoning to assess candidates who oppose elective abortion and another way of reasoning to assess candidates who don't. And the with the latter way of reasoning resting appearing to assume negative about the candidate, then how is it that abortion has not in part become a single-issue on which Christians can vote?
Now instead of assuming what Carter does about the pro-choice candidate, we treat the pro-choice candidate as we would the anti-abortion candidate, then we would be looking into the candidate's position on other issues, such as the children in Dafur, to see if the pro-choice candidate has a mix of pro-life concerns. In other words, we rephrase Carter's statement questioning how he could believe that a pro-choice candidate could care about the children in Dafur, for example, so that it becomes a hypothesis worthy of testing:
If a candidate is unwilling to protect children in the womb in America, then that candidate can/does not care about the plight of children in Darfur
Now to prove whether the hypothesis is true, one looks at the candidate's past positions and action regarding the children of Dafur to see if he/she can/does care about these children. And we could use that same hypothesis testing method to see if any pro-choice candidate can/does care about vulnerable or endangered people in other situations.
As Carter wrote his article, there is no need to test a pro-choice candidate's positions or record on other situations where people's lives or dignity are being threatened. That is because Carter's logic here strongly suggests, if not implies, that pro-choice candidates cannot be concerned about human life and dignity in other situations where life and dignity are being threatened. Thus, there is no need to inquire about their positions or record. But such logic tells us to ignore a candidate's position or record once we learn that they are pro-choice.
I oppose elective abortion. I agree with Carter in that we should make justice a plausible single issue on which Christians could vote. But to automatically conclude that one cannot be concerned about the dignity of human life in any situations simply because the candidate is pro-choice is not just wrong; in the context of this article, it is manipulative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 2
To Jen Wilkin and her blogpost on how to escape becoming bitter over being treated unfairly. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
I've run into a similar decision to the one above when protesting and in my activism. That I must remember when I call for social justice, I am calling as a person who has been unjust to others. Thus, I cannot protest in ways that suggest that I am morally superior to the people whom I am protesting against. That in protesting against injustice, I must show empathy to those I am protesting against and thus I should conduct myself in ways that invite the targets of my protest to change.
One of the ways to escape both the bitterness trap described above and holier-than-thou protesting is to remember my need for God's mercy and grace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Sarah Stanley and his blogpost lamenting the lessening of economic freedom in the US and the assertion that economic freedom causes a nation’s society and economy to flourish. This appeared in the Acton blog.
The problem with this economic freedom measurement is the assumptions that go with the index. For example, back in the '70s, both Chile and Argentina used miltiary dictatorships to introduce the economic freedom that came in the form of neoliberalism. Chile is still suffering from repercussions of that dictatorship. In addition, neoliberalism, which is epitome of economic freedom, required Yeltsin to use the military to attack his Parliament because they were not buying into neoliberalism's economic freedom sales pitch.
Another problem that comes with the measurement of economic freedom is wealth disparity. We should note that 4 of the nations with the most economic freedom listed above are in the top 17 nations in terms of a growing wealth disparity (see http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/income-inequality-around-the-world-is-a-failure-of-capitalism/238837/ ). In addition, another nation on that list, Chile, already had one of the greatest wealth disparity gaps in the world. And there are growing protests in still others nations from the above list regarding growing wealth disparity. That should not surprise us because economic freedom's definition revolves around the status of the individual. Thus, the above claim that economic freedom brings both social and economic 'flourishing' is exagerated.
Economic freedom basically cuts social responsibility ties between private sector elites and society. And though the US is thought of as having less economic freedom than other nations, when our financial sector successfully fought off efforts that would regulate Wall Street's dirivative products, increasing economic freedom, that led to the economic collapse of 2008. The correlation between economic freedom and flourishing was backwards during that time--that is backwards according to the claims.
The problem here is the oversimplicity with which economic freedom is paired with economic and societal benefits. There isn't such a positive correlation between the two and thus we have to look at other factors to see if the economic freedom there is really causing a nation's economy and society to flourish.
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Tucker Carlson that both declares Trump’s use of outrageous speech is right and necessary for debates and the restraint of speech is why our national debates are ‘useless.’ This appeared in Heidelblog.
Then again, self-restraint in speech can indicate a character quality in a person who will be in charge of the most powerful military in the world.
As for Carlson's view, I believe it is a bit backwards. The reason why our debates are stilted and useless is due to the loss of self-control in speech. That loss isn't necessarily seen in the absence of outrageous words, but in choice to attack others rather than address the issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 1
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how Christians can be single issue voters when justice is the issue. And that just because a candidate opposes abortion doesn’t mean that the candidate is consistently pro-life. On the other hand, he cannot believe that a candidate who is pro-choice can care about life and dignity in other situations such as the plight of the children in Darfur. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
Carter's one issue of justice is a worthy issue on which to vote for candidates--that is in principle. The real question will be how it is implemented. And while in one paragraph, he states that a candidate who opposes abortion may not be consistently pro-life. And so we need to find out other policies this candidate has proposed for other situations in which his regard for human dignity would be tested. And all of this is well and good so far.
But in the paragraph that follows the one asking us to test an anti-abortion candidate's consistency in being pro-life, he says:
On the other hand, failing on a particular litmus test is often a clear signal that the candidate has an inadequate view of human dignity, and will fail to consistently promote justice while in office. For instance, knowing that a candidate favors abortion-on-demand can be a clue to how they would act on foreign policy issues. If a candidate is unwilling to protect children in the womb in America, why should I believe they care about the plight of children in Darfur?
Here Carter is saying that if a candidate supports elective abortion, he has no reason to believe that the candidate cares about the plight of others whose human dignity is being severely compromised. So Carter proposes that we use one way of reasoning to assess candidates who oppose elective abortion and another way of reasoning to assess candidates who don't. And the with the latter way of reasoning resting appearing to assume negative about the candidate, then how is it that abortion has not in part become a single-issue on which Christians can vote?
Now instead of assuming what Carter does about the pro-choice candidate, we treat the pro-choice candidate as we would the anti-abortion candidate, then we would be looking into the candidate's position on other issues, such as the children in Dafur, to see if the pro-choice candidate has a mix of pro-life concerns. In other words, we rephrase Carter's statement questioning how he could believe that a pro-choice candidate could care about the children in Dafur, for example, so that it becomes a hypothesis worthy of testing:
If a candidate is unwilling to protect children in the womb in America, then that candidate can/does not care about the plight of children in Darfur
Now to prove whether the hypothesis is true, one looks at the candidate's past positions and action regarding the children of Dafur to see if he/she can/does care about these children. And we could use that same hypothesis testing method to see if any pro-choice candidate can/does care about vulnerable or endangered people in other situations.
As Carter wrote his article, there is no need to test a pro-choice candidate's positions or record on other situations where people's lives or dignity are being threatened. That is because Carter's logic here strongly suggests, if not implies, that pro-choice candidates cannot be concerned about human life and dignity in other situations where life and dignity are being threatened. Thus, there is no need to inquire about their positions or record. But such logic tells us to ignore a candidate's position or record once we learn that they are pro-choice.
I oppose elective abortion. I agree with Carter in that we should make justice a plausible single issue on which Christians could vote. But to automatically conclude that one cannot be concerned about the dignity of human life in any situations simply because the candidate is pro-choice is not just wrong; in the context of this article, it is manipulative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 2
To Jen Wilkin and her blogpost on how to escape becoming bitter over being treated unfairly. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.
I've run into a similar decision to the one above when protesting and in my activism. That I must remember when I call for social justice, I am calling as a person who has been unjust to others. Thus, I cannot protest in ways that suggest that I am morally superior to the people whom I am protesting against. That in protesting against injustice, I must show empathy to those I am protesting against and thus I should conduct myself in ways that invite the targets of my protest to change.
One of the ways to escape both the bitterness trap described above and holier-than-thou protesting is to remember my need for God's mercy and grace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Sarah Stanley and his blogpost lamenting the lessening of economic freedom in the US and the assertion that economic freedom causes a nation’s society and economy to flourish. This appeared in the Acton blog.
The problem with this economic freedom measurement is the assumptions that go with the index. For example, back in the '70s, both Chile and Argentina used miltiary dictatorships to introduce the economic freedom that came in the form of neoliberalism. Chile is still suffering from repercussions of that dictatorship. In addition, neoliberalism, which is epitome of economic freedom, required Yeltsin to use the military to attack his Parliament because they were not buying into neoliberalism's economic freedom sales pitch.
Another problem that comes with the measurement of economic freedom is wealth disparity. We should note that 4 of the nations with the most economic freedom listed above are in the top 17 nations in terms of a growing wealth disparity (see http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/income-inequality-around-the-world-is-a-failure-of-capitalism/238837/ ). In addition, another nation on that list, Chile, already had one of the greatest wealth disparity gaps in the world. And there are growing protests in still others nations from the above list regarding growing wealth disparity. That should not surprise us because economic freedom's definition revolves around the status of the individual. Thus, the above claim that economic freedom brings both social and economic 'flourishing' is exagerated.
Economic freedom basically cuts social responsibility ties between private sector elites and society. And though the US is thought of as having less economic freedom than other nations, when our financial sector successfully fought off efforts that would regulate Wall Street's dirivative products, increasing economic freedom, that led to the economic collapse of 2008. The correlation between economic freedom and flourishing was backwards during that time--that is backwards according to the claims.
The problem here is the oversimplicity with which economic freedom is paired with economic and societal benefits. There isn't such a positive correlation between the two and thus we have to look at other factors to see if the economic freedom there is really causing a nation's economy and society to flourish.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For December 9, 2015
Dec 3
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that accuses gov’t of trying to show off or replace God when it responds to tragedies like the mass shooting in San Bernardino. This appeared in Heidelblog
Why quote someone who describes the view that opposes theirs in absolute terms creating a straw man? And why the exclusive or choice between seeing the need for government intervention or recognizing human flaws and relying on participating in voluntary associations?
IF anything, when you use the above quote, you are using religion to promote a political ideology, the conservative one, while being inconsistent. For while the above quote says that humans are inclined to bad behavior, it promotes the ideology of conservative humans as if neither one has any fault. The above quote presents conservative ideology as if it has no need for progressive input because conservatives, who also lean toward sin, have nothing to learn from progressives. And what is most inconsistent is that while the above quote promotes government apathy to the misuse of guns in mass shootings, you favored government action to prohibit same-sex marriage. And while you teach Romans 13 and how it says government must protect the innocent and punish the wrongdoer, you post a quote that frames any effort to reduce gun violence in this country as a government effort to show off or replace God.
The quote above is wrong and tries nothing more than to state that conservative Christianity implies conservative politics. And once you do that, don't be surprised when nonChristians look down on the Gospel after they find fault with conservative politics. And worse than that, don't be surprised when young conservative Christians become disillusioned with the faith after they question conservative politics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 4
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on a cooperative effort between progressives and conservatives to address issues of poverty. This appeared in the Acton blog.
That there are some agreements between progressives and conservatives does not surprise me, it fits my experience. When I have talked to those protesting the leftist demonstrations I participate in, I find that there can be a signficiant amount of agreement in identifying the problems our nation faces. And the reason for the shared concerns is that we live in the same world. There are real differences in our solutions to those problems for sure. That is where ideology divides. But to find out the similarities and difference in opinions, there have to be conversations that are free of ideological tribalism.
Will be looking forward to reading the next post. In the meantime, for those who do not welcome this working together because one has to recognize some validity to what the other side is saying, I will leave the following Martin Luther King quote said during his speech against the Vietnam War:
The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.
Now if we replace the word "Western" with a fill-in-the-blank, imagine all the people and groups whose names would fit into that sentence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Denny Burk and his blogpost reaction to the statement made by some that God isn’t fixing our problem with gun violence. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.
The Christian deafness to significant social problems is one of our traits that brings dishonor to the Gospel. For Denny's above response could be used as a response to any social problem is the rpoblem we have. Yes, we have a future. But for those who are dying because of our apathy to evil, calling problems dealing with life and death 'narrow' is beyond the pale.
Finally, let's realize that some of the attributes unbelievers give to God are the ones they see in those of us who claim to follow God. Thus, the statement, 'God isn't fixing this' should cause us to first examine ourselves, that is those of us who claim to be Christians. For if people making such statements are really talking about us, then any orthodox theological response we give to such a statement confirms to unbelievers that God is not listening either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 5
To John Piper and his to-do and never-do lists of how to respond to evil. This appeared in the Gospel Colition
There is one "never-do" that was missing from Piper's list regarding evil: Never externalize evil. That is to say that we should never deny that either we as individuals or the groups we belong to are incapable of committing evil. Though never externalize evil on an individual basis seems to be implied by praying for God to deliver us from evil, Externalizing evil on a group basis has allowed us to rightly condemn Islamic terrorism while looking away from the evils of American foreign policies that have contributed to terrorism.
Externalizing evil allows us to respond to evil with evil. It allows us to seek revenge for ourselves or others while believing we are righteous. Responding to evil must always never include the prayer of the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying; it should include the prayer of the publican instead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 7
To Abigail Murrish and her blogpost interview of two Christian workers in Liberia stating that Liberia needs engagement, not relief. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website
What bothers me about this post is that without giving an overall discussion of Liberia's general state, we are given an excluvis-or choice between engagement and relief. From the brief background reading I've done, it seems like Liberia needs both engagement and relief. That Liberia's problems include gov't corruption, scandalous businesses and operatons, troubled economy, a severely hampered infrastructure, and internal conflicts all point to the need of both relief and engagement. And yet, neither those problems a fair choice is provided by this article. It could be that the writers were writing from the persepctive of their local situation. But still, a fuller picture of what has been going on before and article should give us this exclusvie-or choice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 8
To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost on justice and how it must be personal. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Christians aren't the only ones who should make justice personal. In fact, if we look around, we can notice that we are occasionally in last place when it comes to working for justice. And at this point, we need to distinguish justice from charity and kindness. The latter attributes focus on the helper and how much they are willing to give. The former focuses on the victim and what is owed. And one more point should be made, justice is everybody's business even though we all have failed to always be just.
We should note one more point about justice. That point was made by Martin Luther King Jr. when speaking against the Vietnam War. He said the following:
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.
Noting that war and racism deal with social justice issues, we could say that if we are going to work for some justice, we need to have a person-oriented rather than thing-oriented. And to strive for that, we need to adopt systems for society, such as our eonomic system, that put a higher priority on people than things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his November blogpost on how unemployment is an economic-spiritual indicator. This appeared in the Acton blog.
The problem with this post and what seems to be with every post in this series is that there is such an emphaisis on associating a positive spiritul status of unemployment with the person who is unemployed. Our unemployment rate can also show the spiritual status of our employers as they either understaff or offshore jobs to places where workers' rights are not respected. In addtion, the unemployment rate can measure the spiritual status of a whole society and the priorities it embraces. For a society, especially a wealthy one. that does not look to change its structures because of unacceptable unemployment rates are societies that have deemphasized the significance of their people.
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that accuses gov’t of trying to show off or replace God when it responds to tragedies like the mass shooting in San Bernardino. This appeared in Heidelblog
Why quote someone who describes the view that opposes theirs in absolute terms creating a straw man? And why the exclusive or choice between seeing the need for government intervention or recognizing human flaws and relying on participating in voluntary associations?
IF anything, when you use the above quote, you are using religion to promote a political ideology, the conservative one, while being inconsistent. For while the above quote says that humans are inclined to bad behavior, it promotes the ideology of conservative humans as if neither one has any fault. The above quote presents conservative ideology as if it has no need for progressive input because conservatives, who also lean toward sin, have nothing to learn from progressives. And what is most inconsistent is that while the above quote promotes government apathy to the misuse of guns in mass shootings, you favored government action to prohibit same-sex marriage. And while you teach Romans 13 and how it says government must protect the innocent and punish the wrongdoer, you post a quote that frames any effort to reduce gun violence in this country as a government effort to show off or replace God.
The quote above is wrong and tries nothing more than to state that conservative Christianity implies conservative politics. And once you do that, don't be surprised when nonChristians look down on the Gospel after they find fault with conservative politics. And worse than that, don't be surprised when young conservative Christians become disillusioned with the faith after they question conservative politics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 4
To Joe Carter and his blogpost on a cooperative effort between progressives and conservatives to address issues of poverty. This appeared in the Acton blog.
That there are some agreements between progressives and conservatives does not surprise me, it fits my experience. When I have talked to those protesting the leftist demonstrations I participate in, I find that there can be a signficiant amount of agreement in identifying the problems our nation faces. And the reason for the shared concerns is that we live in the same world. There are real differences in our solutions to those problems for sure. That is where ideology divides. But to find out the similarities and difference in opinions, there have to be conversations that are free of ideological tribalism.
Will be looking forward to reading the next post. In the meantime, for those who do not welcome this working together because one has to recognize some validity to what the other side is saying, I will leave the following Martin Luther King quote said during his speech against the Vietnam War:
The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.
Now if we replace the word "Western" with a fill-in-the-blank, imagine all the people and groups whose names would fit into that sentence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Denny Burk and his blogpost reaction to the statement made by some that God isn’t fixing our problem with gun violence. This appeared in Denny Burk’s blog.
The Christian deafness to significant social problems is one of our traits that brings dishonor to the Gospel. For Denny's above response could be used as a response to any social problem is the rpoblem we have. Yes, we have a future. But for those who are dying because of our apathy to evil, calling problems dealing with life and death 'narrow' is beyond the pale.
Finally, let's realize that some of the attributes unbelievers give to God are the ones they see in those of us who claim to follow God. Thus, the statement, 'God isn't fixing this' should cause us to first examine ourselves, that is those of us who claim to be Christians. For if people making such statements are really talking about us, then any orthodox theological response we give to such a statement confirms to unbelievers that God is not listening either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 5
To John Piper and his to-do and never-do lists of how to respond to evil. This appeared in the Gospel Colition
There is one "never-do" that was missing from Piper's list regarding evil: Never externalize evil. That is to say that we should never deny that either we as individuals or the groups we belong to are incapable of committing evil. Though never externalize evil on an individual basis seems to be implied by praying for God to deliver us from evil, Externalizing evil on a group basis has allowed us to rightly condemn Islamic terrorism while looking away from the evils of American foreign policies that have contributed to terrorism.
Externalizing evil allows us to respond to evil with evil. It allows us to seek revenge for ourselves or others while believing we are righteous. Responding to evil must always never include the prayer of the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying; it should include the prayer of the publican instead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 7
To Abigail Murrish and her blogpost interview of two Christian workers in Liberia stating that Liberia needs engagement, not relief. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website
What bothers me about this post is that without giving an overall discussion of Liberia's general state, we are given an excluvis-or choice between engagement and relief. From the brief background reading I've done, it seems like Liberia needs both engagement and relief. That Liberia's problems include gov't corruption, scandalous businesses and operatons, troubled economy, a severely hampered infrastructure, and internal conflicts all point to the need of both relief and engagement. And yet, neither those problems a fair choice is provided by this article. It could be that the writers were writing from the persepctive of their local situation. But still, a fuller picture of what has been going on before and article should give us this exclusvie-or choice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 8
To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost on justice and how it must be personal. This appeared in the Acton blog.
Christians aren't the only ones who should make justice personal. In fact, if we look around, we can notice that we are occasionally in last place when it comes to working for justice. And at this point, we need to distinguish justice from charity and kindness. The latter attributes focus on the helper and how much they are willing to give. The former focuses on the victim and what is owed. And one more point should be made, justice is everybody's business even though we all have failed to always be just.
We should note one more point about justice. That point was made by Martin Luther King Jr. when speaking against the Vietnam War. He said the following:
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.
Noting that war and racism deal with social justice issues, we could say that if we are going to work for some justice, we need to have a person-oriented rather than thing-oriented. And to strive for that, we need to adopt systems for society, such as our eonomic system, that put a higher priority on people than things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter and his November blogpost on how unemployment is an economic-spiritual indicator. This appeared in the Acton blog.
The problem with this post and what seems to be with every post in this series is that there is such an emphaisis on associating a positive spiritul status of unemployment with the person who is unemployed. Our unemployment rate can also show the spiritual status of our employers as they either understaff or offshore jobs to places where workers' rights are not respected. In addtion, the unemployment rate can measure the spiritual status of a whole society and the priorities it embraces. For a society, especially a wealthy one. that does not look to change its structures because of unacceptable unemployment rates are societies that have deemphasized the significance of their people.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Is It Our Doctrine Or Our Behavior, Only Our Critics Know For Sure
Carl Trueman just wrote a response to an attack on Christianity on whether the faith itself was childish. (click here). We shouldn't be surprised by the charges Trueman is having to answer in the wake of the same-sex marriage controversy, Christianity is under attack. It has been under attack over the abortion issue as well. Even earlier than that, Christianity was under attack during the emergence of Marxism. In fact, Christianity has been under attack since it began. The concerns we Christians should have here is why is our faith under attack.
Following Marx, Vladimir Lenin wrote the following about religion in general and including Christianity speicifically (click here for reference):
The immediate reaction that many of us Christians have to an attack on our faith is to presume that it is an attack on the doctrine behind our faith. Thus, with Bible as the sword in our hands, we are all too eager jump up and do battle with whatever dragon that would insult our faith.
But the problem here is that we get ready to do battle while harboring a questionable assumption. That assumption would be that the impetus for any current attack on our faith arises from reactions to the doctrines that define our faith. We rarely consider whether an attack first proceeds from what they have observed in us.
Regarding Lenin's attack on religion in general, it is not difficult to tell the reasons for his attacks. It is because of how Christians had responded to the exploitation of labor either as laborers or as employers. As laborers, Lenin observed that we were too ready to take abuse and too reluctant to work for our own justice. And what extinguished any potential fire in us to work for change was the comfort we get from our belief in the afterlife.
The story for employers was both different and the same. Employers could numb any pangs of conscience for exploiting labor by compensating for the abuse by practicing charity. The more one gives, the better one feels. And the better one feels, the less inclined one becomes to repent of taking advantage of others.
So if you are a Christian, what is your immediate response to hearing criticism of our faith?
Understanding the reason why people criticize our faith is important. That is because if they merely don't believe or they feel offended by what we say, there is not much we can do other than to try to answer objections. But if a person is telling us that our faith is absurd because of what they see in us, then it is time to dedicate some serious time to standing in front of the mirror that the Scriptures provide.
We should note that Lenin's criticisms of religion were due to observation. And it seemed that, according to the model of thought he was using, the religious people of his time, the majority of which were Orthodox Christians, were using faith purely as an anesthetic. These Christians, according to Lenin, were more interested in feeling good than doing good. Now here, we should question Lenin's criteria for what is good for the laborer more than the employer. But we should do that without losing sight of the general principle involved. Do we Christians use the forgiveness of sins primarily as a drug to make us feel good about ourselves and the future?
Of course there is an alternative to using the forgiveness of sins as an anesthetic. Instead of using our faith as a drug, our faith could be the catalyst to changing our lives. No doubt, that as laborers, our faith could be the start of a changed life and Lenin would not recognize it because his ultimate standard for how labor should behave back then was to join the revolution--such was an opportunistic belief on his part.
In contrast, how he judged employers should at least partially disturb us. Do we say nothing to the abuses going on around us because we have a secured future especially when we show charity to some around us/ Because if that is the case, then we are more interested in using the forgiveness of sins promised in our faith as a drug to numb our consciences so we can play and sleep well at night despite how we neglect those in need. To use Francis Schaeffer's model of thought, and he was hardly a Marxist, if our faith robs us of the incentive to stand up to the injustices around us, personal peace has become an idol to us.
The more our faith acts as an anesthetic than as a catalyst, the more our passivity to injustice or attempts to compensate for that passivity will bring dishonor to the Gospel. Yes, our critics will be wrong about Christianity, but they will be telling us something vital to us about ourselves. They will be telling us that we need to repent. And wouldn't that an ironic kick in the head when the people we are trying to preach to are telling us what we should do or believe.
Following Marx, Vladimir Lenin wrote the following about religion in general and including Christianity speicifically (click here for reference):
Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. 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.
The immediate reaction that many of us Christians have to an attack on our faith is to presume that it is an attack on the doctrine behind our faith. Thus, with Bible as the sword in our hands, we are all too eager jump up and do battle with whatever dragon that would insult our faith.
But the problem here is that we get ready to do battle while harboring a questionable assumption. That assumption would be that the impetus for any current attack on our faith arises from reactions to the doctrines that define our faith. We rarely consider whether an attack first proceeds from what they have observed in us.
Regarding Lenin's attack on religion in general, it is not difficult to tell the reasons for his attacks. It is because of how Christians had responded to the exploitation of labor either as laborers or as employers. As laborers, Lenin observed that we were too ready to take abuse and too reluctant to work for our own justice. And what extinguished any potential fire in us to work for change was the comfort we get from our belief in the afterlife.
The story for employers was both different and the same. Employers could numb any pangs of conscience for exploiting labor by compensating for the abuse by practicing charity. The more one gives, the better one feels. And the better one feels, the less inclined one becomes to repent of taking advantage of others.
So if you are a Christian, what is your immediate response to hearing criticism of our faith?
Understanding the reason why people criticize our faith is important. That is because if they merely don't believe or they feel offended by what we say, there is not much we can do other than to try to answer objections. But if a person is telling us that our faith is absurd because of what they see in us, then it is time to dedicate some serious time to standing in front of the mirror that the Scriptures provide.
We should note that Lenin's criticisms of religion were due to observation. And it seemed that, according to the model of thought he was using, the religious people of his time, the majority of which were Orthodox Christians, were using faith purely as an anesthetic. These Christians, according to Lenin, were more interested in feeling good than doing good. Now here, we should question Lenin's criteria for what is good for the laborer more than the employer. But we should do that without losing sight of the general principle involved. Do we Christians use the forgiveness of sins primarily as a drug to make us feel good about ourselves and the future?
Of course there is an alternative to using the forgiveness of sins as an anesthetic. Instead of using our faith as a drug, our faith could be the catalyst to changing our lives. No doubt, that as laborers, our faith could be the start of a changed life and Lenin would not recognize it because his ultimate standard for how labor should behave back then was to join the revolution--such was an opportunistic belief on his part.
In contrast, how he judged employers should at least partially disturb us. Do we say nothing to the abuses going on around us because we have a secured future especially when we show charity to some around us/ Because if that is the case, then we are more interested in using the forgiveness of sins promised in our faith as a drug to numb our consciences so we can play and sleep well at night despite how we neglect those in need. To use Francis Schaeffer's model of thought, and he was hardly a Marxist, if our faith robs us of the incentive to stand up to the injustices around us, personal peace has become an idol to us.
The more our faith acts as an anesthetic than as a catalyst, the more our passivity to injustice or attempts to compensate for that passivity will bring dishonor to the Gospel. Yes, our critics will be wrong about Christianity, but they will be telling us something vital to us about ourselves. They will be telling us that we need to repent. And wouldn't that an ironic kick in the head when the people we are trying to preach to are telling us what we should do or believe.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Equality And Inequality For Israel-Palestine
For as long as so many have divided themselves into camps for either side, there is no way that a peaceful settlement can be found between the Israelis and the Palestinians . Such is the price we pay for tribalism. Tribalism can make us feel good especially when it causes us to feel proud of belonging to our groups, but divisions, envy, and enmity are soon to follow. And sometimes, as has occurred with the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, tribalism irrevocably leads down an irrational path to moral suicide and even physical destruction.
If we are going to search for a peaceful settlement that relies on justice, we must abhor the abduction and killing of the 3 Israeli teenagers as much as we abhor the Occupation and Israel's detention, torture, and killing of Palestinians by Israeli security forces and settlers. And if we want a peace by justice settlement, we must oppose Hamas' rockets fired at Israel as much as we oppose Israel's current coldhearted attack on Gaza. For if one has the right to attack civilians in the name of self-defense, so does the other. If Israel claims the right to attack Gaza because no country would tolerate being attacked by missiles, realize that the Palestinians have the right to attack Israel because no people should have to tolerate being permanently occupied--which includes having resources destroyed and land stolen--by a foreign power. Of course, allowing both to attack each other the way they do is to do nothing but let others be attacked because they are not us. If we continue with that philosophy, who will be left to protect us when we are attacked?
We should note that there is an argument against equating the attacks of one's enemies with own attacks on others. The argument against calls such a comparison 'moral equivalency.' Those who use this term do so to denounce the equating of one's own actions with that of one's enemies. But what those who oppose moral equivalency seem to not notice is that their rejection of moral equivalency is due to their embracing of moral relativity. And moral relativity, from a Christian perspective is nothing short of a denial of God's Word as well as His character because He is not a respecter of persons.
The above is the equality aspect in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Where the inequality exists is in the strength and oppression one side has exercised over the other. This was the witness of Rachel Corrie when she stayed in Gaza. It is also testified by the statistics gathered by B'Tselem (click here), an Israeli human rights group. Israel has one of the strongest militaries in the world. Israel continues to rob the Palestinians of their means to live. Israel continues to steal land from the Palestinians. And Israel continues to treat the Palestinians like dogs and while feigning that some Palestinians would act like animals.
In the meantime, the world watches the World Cup or whatever follows it. Such is a denial of both our inter-connectivity and the humanity of all the victims, Israeli and Palestinian, of this conflict. Here, the greatest sins are being committed by both those with the most power and those who use a claim to having the moral high ground to take sides rather than work for justice for all.
If we are going to search for a peaceful settlement that relies on justice, we must abhor the abduction and killing of the 3 Israeli teenagers as much as we abhor the Occupation and Israel's detention, torture, and killing of Palestinians by Israeli security forces and settlers. And if we want a peace by justice settlement, we must oppose Hamas' rockets fired at Israel as much as we oppose Israel's current coldhearted attack on Gaza. For if one has the right to attack civilians in the name of self-defense, so does the other. If Israel claims the right to attack Gaza because no country would tolerate being attacked by missiles, realize that the Palestinians have the right to attack Israel because no people should have to tolerate being permanently occupied--which includes having resources destroyed and land stolen--by a foreign power. Of course, allowing both to attack each other the way they do is to do nothing but let others be attacked because they are not us. If we continue with that philosophy, who will be left to protect us when we are attacked?
We should note that there is an argument against equating the attacks of one's enemies with own attacks on others. The argument against calls such a comparison 'moral equivalency.' Those who use this term do so to denounce the equating of one's own actions with that of one's enemies. But what those who oppose moral equivalency seem to not notice is that their rejection of moral equivalency is due to their embracing of moral relativity. And moral relativity, from a Christian perspective is nothing short of a denial of God's Word as well as His character because He is not a respecter of persons.
The above is the equality aspect in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Where the inequality exists is in the strength and oppression one side has exercised over the other. This was the witness of Rachel Corrie when she stayed in Gaza. It is also testified by the statistics gathered by B'Tselem (click here), an Israeli human rights group. Israel has one of the strongest militaries in the world. Israel continues to rob the Palestinians of their means to live. Israel continues to steal land from the Palestinians. And Israel continues to treat the Palestinians like dogs and while feigning that some Palestinians would act like animals.
In the meantime, the world watches the World Cup or whatever follows it. Such is a denial of both our inter-connectivity and the humanity of all the victims, Israeli and Palestinian, of this conflict. Here, the greatest sins are being committed by both those with the most power and those who use a claim to having the moral high ground to take sides rather than work for justice for all.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Tribalism Is Killing The World And The Church Is Not Helping
What is clear from both the Old and New Testaments is that our regard and love for God is in inextricably tied to our treatment of people. Thus, regardless of the number, size, or grandeur of the houses of worship we build, the energy with which we sing hymns, and the risks we take to preach the Gospel, if we are not just in how we treat others, God does not acknowledge our worship, prayers, works, and words. This is something that should strike fear in all of us simply because we have all been unjust to others and thus all of us should constantly be praying the prayer of the tax collector, from the parable of the two men praying, who could not even lift his eyes up to heaven because he could not erase the shame of his own sins from his sight.
The Scriptures mention 3 ways by which we practice injustice against others. The first way is that we can exploit or abuse others. The second way is that we neglect those in need. The third way is that we treat those from whom we can benefit the most with preference. We should note that these ways of being unjust to others are not mutually exclusive; all too many times we practice injustice against others in multiple ways. But perhaps before we continue, we should explain these three ways.
To exploit someone is to take advantage of them. And in the majority of times we exploit others, we do so by capitalizing on a perceived weakness. But sometimes we take advantage of those above us because of what we can get out of them. When we are young, many more times we gain status before our friends by publicly humiliating others. And when we are old, we find that some things never change. Many times, this exploitation involves abuse. Abuse involves the hurting and mistreating of others. We abuse others by what we say about and do to them. In doing so, we reinforce a pecking order in our little world. What should give us reason for pause is that God remembers each malevolent peck we give to others.
When we neglect those in need, we either blind ourselves to the needs and hurts of others or we join Cain in rhetorically asking: "Am I my brother's keeper." In either case, we find a reason for not stopping to provide some measure of relief to those who are suffering. This could be done by withdrawing ourselves from those who are being ridiculed or marginalized and thus need personal intervention or by refusing to share with others the bounty which God has given us. In any case, unlike Jesus who stopped to minister to those who were suffering, we continue on our way.
Finally, we show preference to those from whom we can gain something. Sometimes, we gain in immaterial ways while at other times we gain material ways. And perhaps the majority of ways by which we show preference to others is to overlook their sins while we gleefully point out the smallest of faults of others. And one of the reasons we are silent about the sins of those above us is because we are afraid of retribution.
But note that the above descriptions and examples show only part of the problem with how we treat others. They revolve around how we mistreat others as individuals. We haven't talked about how the groups we belong to practice injustice. And it is this mistreatment of others by groups and our responsibility for the cruelty which needs more of our focus simply because the actions of groups can more often cause more pain than the actions of individuals.
The groups that have caused the most pain are nations, economic systems and classes, and races. And when loyalty to one's nation, economic system and class, or race, which is loyalty to any group, trumps commitment to keep principles and morals, we have tribalism. And during the Cold War, it wasn't difficult to see how some forms of tribalism put all human life on earth at risk. A full scale nuclear war will most probably cause the end of all human life on earth. And those who would participate in pulling the triggers would be doing so because following orders and loyalty to one's nation would allow individuals to participate in the wholesale slaughter of millions of people. And though the risk of a nuclear holocaust has lessened, the nuclear missiles of both Russia and the United States are still aimed at each other. In fact, we came within a few minutes of a full-scale nuclear war in 1995 when a Western satellite launch was for a period of time interpreted as a missile attack against Moscow.
Of course, we don't have to have a nuclear war to see how one nation and race could commit wide-scale atrocities on others. To many of us, Nazi Germany comes to mind here with its mass extermination against the Jews, Socialists, Homosexuals, Gypsies, and others as an example of how one group can abuse others for the glory of a nation and under the waving of a flag. But Nazi Germany is not our only example. The treatment of America's indigenous peoples by its European settlers is has been as bad an example of injustice in the name of a nation and under the waving of a flag. Though there might be a dispute in the numbers killed, the murderous removal of people from their land that a young United States practiced is beyond dispute and the abuses continue today. And we should never forget how Whites have, and continue to do so, sorely persecuted and oppressed Blacks. All of the injustices from our three examples were practiced because loyalty to group trumped commitment to principle and the basic respect for people.
But national and tribalism aren't the only threats that further injustice today; economic systems also promote injustice. We should note John Pilger's study of Apartheid that is available in either his book, Freedom Next Time, or his documentary film. For here he shows that the South Africa's Apartheid system didn't die when it became politically unviable. Rather, since Apartheid was intertwined with an economic system, it survived its political demise because the economic system remained in place. And this is why, though there are more exceptions to the rule today than before the end of political apartheid, the wealth disparity between Whites and Blacks in South Africa has increased rather than diminished with the end of political Apartheid. We should note that a somewhat similar result has occurred in America despite advances made by the Civil Rights movement. This is because those belonging to the dominant economic system care more for the profits of the few than the welfare of the many.
Part of the injustices of our current economic system come from the following. The globalization of trade and neoliberal Capitalism has increased the labor pool especially for repetitive and low-skill jobs. And as any Capitalist knows, with an increase of supply comes a decrease in price/cost/pay. So market forces have either lowered the wages of some or removed employment of others making such people and their communities expendable. So while some make a financial killing out of the outsourcing of jobs to other countries, others are subjected to sweatshop labor conditions while others have no work at all.
And if we add to that the way we extract natural energy resources, such as using mountaintop removal to mine for coal or fracking to drill for oil or natural gas, we see the uncaring destruction of people's communities and homes in an effort to increase profits. But not only are people's current lives being destroyed, so is their future. And this is done all in the sake of profit and we see that millions suffer and die because of this tribalism.
See, for as long people as unquestionably support their own nation's quest for conquest and their own economic system's desire to grow big and rich at the expense of others, we have tribalism. We have a culture where right and wrong depends solely on who does what to whom.
What is the Church's response to all of this? The Conservative Church's response to this tribalism is to reinforce it by practicing its own forms. In the Church's tribalism, we see, for the most part, the Conservative Church aligning itself with power and wealth, with patriotism and Capitalism. It won't challenge either. But not only will it not challenge either , its infighting and its self-ostracism from "worldly' influences provide more examples of tribalism.
The above is not the only picture we see in the Conservative Church but it is the predominant one. And it is unfortunate for both the Church and those outside. It is unfortunate for the church in that it shows itself to be no different from the rest of the world. It is unfortunate for the rest of the world because as the Church shows itself to be the same as the world, it deprives the world of hearing a credible witness for the Gospel.
Finally, it is also unfortunate for the world because it is following the path that tribalism has so often traveled before only this time it is traveling with technologies that carry far bigger impacts. Our weapons can destroy all human life, our industries and tools can make earth uninhabitable, and our computer and communications technologies can be used to impoverish greater multitudes of people than ever before. Yes, we have the same tribalism as before. But our technological advancements have made that tribalism more and more dangerous and the question for the Church becomes, what is it doing to curb today's threats? Though some may not think that is the business of the Church, if preaching repentance to those who practice injustice is part of sharing the Gospel, then addressing today's manmade perils is at the heart of evangelism and the Church's mission.
The Scriptures mention 3 ways by which we practice injustice against others. The first way is that we can exploit or abuse others. The second way is that we neglect those in need. The third way is that we treat those from whom we can benefit the most with preference. We should note that these ways of being unjust to others are not mutually exclusive; all too many times we practice injustice against others in multiple ways. But perhaps before we continue, we should explain these three ways.
To exploit someone is to take advantage of them. And in the majority of times we exploit others, we do so by capitalizing on a perceived weakness. But sometimes we take advantage of those above us because of what we can get out of them. When we are young, many more times we gain status before our friends by publicly humiliating others. And when we are old, we find that some things never change. Many times, this exploitation involves abuse. Abuse involves the hurting and mistreating of others. We abuse others by what we say about and do to them. In doing so, we reinforce a pecking order in our little world. What should give us reason for pause is that God remembers each malevolent peck we give to others.
When we neglect those in need, we either blind ourselves to the needs and hurts of others or we join Cain in rhetorically asking: "Am I my brother's keeper." In either case, we find a reason for not stopping to provide some measure of relief to those who are suffering. This could be done by withdrawing ourselves from those who are being ridiculed or marginalized and thus need personal intervention or by refusing to share with others the bounty which God has given us. In any case, unlike Jesus who stopped to minister to those who were suffering, we continue on our way.
Finally, we show preference to those from whom we can gain something. Sometimes, we gain in immaterial ways while at other times we gain material ways. And perhaps the majority of ways by which we show preference to others is to overlook their sins while we gleefully point out the smallest of faults of others. And one of the reasons we are silent about the sins of those above us is because we are afraid of retribution.
But note that the above descriptions and examples show only part of the problem with how we treat others. They revolve around how we mistreat others as individuals. We haven't talked about how the groups we belong to practice injustice. And it is this mistreatment of others by groups and our responsibility for the cruelty which needs more of our focus simply because the actions of groups can more often cause more pain than the actions of individuals.
The groups that have caused the most pain are nations, economic systems and classes, and races. And when loyalty to one's nation, economic system and class, or race, which is loyalty to any group, trumps commitment to keep principles and morals, we have tribalism. And during the Cold War, it wasn't difficult to see how some forms of tribalism put all human life on earth at risk. A full scale nuclear war will most probably cause the end of all human life on earth. And those who would participate in pulling the triggers would be doing so because following orders and loyalty to one's nation would allow individuals to participate in the wholesale slaughter of millions of people. And though the risk of a nuclear holocaust has lessened, the nuclear missiles of both Russia and the United States are still aimed at each other. In fact, we came within a few minutes of a full-scale nuclear war in 1995 when a Western satellite launch was for a period of time interpreted as a missile attack against Moscow.
Of course, we don't have to have a nuclear war to see how one nation and race could commit wide-scale atrocities on others. To many of us, Nazi Germany comes to mind here with its mass extermination against the Jews, Socialists, Homosexuals, Gypsies, and others as an example of how one group can abuse others for the glory of a nation and under the waving of a flag. But Nazi Germany is not our only example. The treatment of America's indigenous peoples by its European settlers is has been as bad an example of injustice in the name of a nation and under the waving of a flag. Though there might be a dispute in the numbers killed, the murderous removal of people from their land that a young United States practiced is beyond dispute and the abuses continue today. And we should never forget how Whites have, and continue to do so, sorely persecuted and oppressed Blacks. All of the injustices from our three examples were practiced because loyalty to group trumped commitment to principle and the basic respect for people.
But national and tribalism aren't the only threats that further injustice today; economic systems also promote injustice. We should note John Pilger's study of Apartheid that is available in either his book, Freedom Next Time, or his documentary film. For here he shows that the South Africa's Apartheid system didn't die when it became politically unviable. Rather, since Apartheid was intertwined with an economic system, it survived its political demise because the economic system remained in place. And this is why, though there are more exceptions to the rule today than before the end of political apartheid, the wealth disparity between Whites and Blacks in South Africa has increased rather than diminished with the end of political Apartheid. We should note that a somewhat similar result has occurred in America despite advances made by the Civil Rights movement. This is because those belonging to the dominant economic system care more for the profits of the few than the welfare of the many.
Part of the injustices of our current economic system come from the following. The globalization of trade and neoliberal Capitalism has increased the labor pool especially for repetitive and low-skill jobs. And as any Capitalist knows, with an increase of supply comes a decrease in price/cost/pay. So market forces have either lowered the wages of some or removed employment of others making such people and their communities expendable. So while some make a financial killing out of the outsourcing of jobs to other countries, others are subjected to sweatshop labor conditions while others have no work at all.
And if we add to that the way we extract natural energy resources, such as using mountaintop removal to mine for coal or fracking to drill for oil or natural gas, we see the uncaring destruction of people's communities and homes in an effort to increase profits. But not only are people's current lives being destroyed, so is their future. And this is done all in the sake of profit and we see that millions suffer and die because of this tribalism.
See, for as long people as unquestionably support their own nation's quest for conquest and their own economic system's desire to grow big and rich at the expense of others, we have tribalism. We have a culture where right and wrong depends solely on who does what to whom.
What is the Church's response to all of this? The Conservative Church's response to this tribalism is to reinforce it by practicing its own forms. In the Church's tribalism, we see, for the most part, the Conservative Church aligning itself with power and wealth, with patriotism and Capitalism. It won't challenge either. But not only will it not challenge either , its infighting and its self-ostracism from "worldly' influences provide more examples of tribalism.
The above is not the only picture we see in the Conservative Church but it is the predominant one. And it is unfortunate for both the Church and those outside. It is unfortunate for the church in that it shows itself to be no different from the rest of the world. It is unfortunate for the rest of the world because as the Church shows itself to be the same as the world, it deprives the world of hearing a credible witness for the Gospel.
Finally, it is also unfortunate for the world because it is following the path that tribalism has so often traveled before only this time it is traveling with technologies that carry far bigger impacts. Our weapons can destroy all human life, our industries and tools can make earth uninhabitable, and our computer and communications technologies can be used to impoverish greater multitudes of people than ever before. Yes, we have the same tribalism as before. But our technological advancements have made that tribalism more and more dangerous and the question for the Church becomes, what is it doing to curb today's threats? Though some may not think that is the business of the Church, if preaching repentance to those who practice injustice is part of sharing the Gospel, then addressing today's manmade perils is at the heart of evangelism and the Church's mission.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Today's Silent Majority Are Yesterday's White Moderates
In his Letter From A Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King Jr identified the White moderate, rather than the White bigot, as providing the greatest deterrent to freedom for Blacks. Here, we need to stop and think about his claim before we describe who the White moderate is. We need to stop and think lest when we read the description of this moderate, we would exclude ourselves from fitting today's version.
We could described White moderates of the 1950s and 60s as those who did not want their boat to be rocked by the activity or discontentment of others. And so they opposed civil disobedience and the direct actions practiced by King and his fellow activists. They were against King's actions for two reasons. First, one should not break the law. Second, drastic action is not needed to stop inequality now because, as Christians know, equality will be given to Blacks in the world to come.
King addressed both points in this letter. First, King understood the opposition of White moderates to direct action as a preference for a tension-free 'order' over justice. So White moderates favored compliance to the law because they had a higher regard for their own comfort than for what was right. And even though perhaps some White moderates could sympathize with the plight that Black had to endure, correcting those injustices was not worth the disruption in the tranquility that came from an ordered society. For White moderates, personal peace, rather than justice, was king.
Likewise, King took apart the contention that direct action is unnecessary because equality would be the status quo in heaven. He merely pointed out that such thinking is the reason why those who work for evil are better stewards of their time and resources than those who work for good. And Christians who do nothing now because justice will be realized later need to take note of Kings's point here. Here King is observing that the rewards of doing evil seem to provide more inspiration for those who do wrong than God sending His Son to die for our sins does for Christians.
To summarize these two points in Christian terms we must say that those Christians who were not willing to do something to further justice on earth were not only failing to practice practice their faith, they were becoming the primary stumbling blocks to justice. Thus, they provided an even greater cause for injustices of the day than those who were actually doing wrong. And this point is not one that we can claim to be ignorant of. We are familiar enough with history to know that during WWII, allied troops forced German residents to tour Nazi death camps so they could see the evils that their inaction brought.
Who are today's White moderates? They are those who are not demanding that we change from today's economic class warfare, a warfare in which those who profit from today's economic apartheid are consolidating wealth for themselves and appropriating unjust suffering and hardships for the rest--note here that today's battels revolve more around class than race. The Occupy Movement, which is actually an international movement, pointed out just some of the sins that those with wealth and power are committing in this current class warfare (click here). And though we helped further the economic apartheid by scapegoating the 1% rather than inviting them to join the rest of us, our accusations are being constantly confirmed by each day's headlines. And today's White moderates are those who prefer the serenity of today's status quo to the anxiety that comes with demanding change.
When we rose up, as seen in Occupy Wall Street and other encampments in 2011, there were so few of us that some of us subdivided the 99% into two groups: the 98% and those who occupied. Why the subdivision? It was because the absence of the 98% from the protests loomed as a greater threat to our work than the presence of police in riot gear. And it is because of this 98% that the message of the Occupy Movement has not borne more fruit than it has. For the current comfort seems to be far more important than justice to many if not all in the 98%. And the biggest shame here is on America's Conservative Church. For it has joined not only an idolatrous patriotism with the Christian faith, it has intimately embraced the conservative ideal of individualism as opposed to loving one's neighbor as Jesus described in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
To prove that the 98% has acted like the White moderates of King's day, one does not rest in the 98%'s their rejection of today's direct actions. Rather, proof can be seen in their steadfast refusal to practice in any legal action that challenges today's status quo. For they're turning their back on participating in legal protests, they are refusing to vote for third party candidates when it is obvious that the two major parties have been bought and paid for, and they abstain from spending any significant time in even reading about the injustices which the system they benefit from inflicts on others. Those actions are the least one can do to change our world. But, rather than letting the cries of the afflicted flame the fires of urgency, the 98% prefers to preserve their own place in the status quo.
Certainly injustice has always been a part of human history but that is not the issue here. The issue is how do we respond to injustice. This issue becomes even more pertinent to those of us who are Christians because the God we claim to worship is heavily invested in pursuing justice. But unfortunately, our individualism redirects our focus from justice for others to what we personally hope to gain from our faith--that is we hope to be saved from wrath. Thus, those of us who are Christians cripple the credibility of the Gospel when we are content to be part of the 98% or the White moderates of King's day or the German citizens who tolerated their Nazi rulers by turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the plight and pleas of those who are suffering from injustice.
So, again, the issue becomes how are we going to respond to the injustices suffered by others. Are we going to resist or we will become the biggest part of the problem?
We could described White moderates of the 1950s and 60s as those who did not want their boat to be rocked by the activity or discontentment of others. And so they opposed civil disobedience and the direct actions practiced by King and his fellow activists. They were against King's actions for two reasons. First, one should not break the law. Second, drastic action is not needed to stop inequality now because, as Christians know, equality will be given to Blacks in the world to come.
King addressed both points in this letter. First, King understood the opposition of White moderates to direct action as a preference for a tension-free 'order' over justice. So White moderates favored compliance to the law because they had a higher regard for their own comfort than for what was right. And even though perhaps some White moderates could sympathize with the plight that Black had to endure, correcting those injustices was not worth the disruption in the tranquility that came from an ordered society. For White moderates, personal peace, rather than justice, was king.
Likewise, King took apart the contention that direct action is unnecessary because equality would be the status quo in heaven. He merely pointed out that such thinking is the reason why those who work for evil are better stewards of their time and resources than those who work for good. And Christians who do nothing now because justice will be realized later need to take note of Kings's point here. Here King is observing that the rewards of doing evil seem to provide more inspiration for those who do wrong than God sending His Son to die for our sins does for Christians.
To summarize these two points in Christian terms we must say that those Christians who were not willing to do something to further justice on earth were not only failing to practice practice their faith, they were becoming the primary stumbling blocks to justice. Thus, they provided an even greater cause for injustices of the day than those who were actually doing wrong. And this point is not one that we can claim to be ignorant of. We are familiar enough with history to know that during WWII, allied troops forced German residents to tour Nazi death camps so they could see the evils that their inaction brought.
Who are today's White moderates? They are those who are not demanding that we change from today's economic class warfare, a warfare in which those who profit from today's economic apartheid are consolidating wealth for themselves and appropriating unjust suffering and hardships for the rest--note here that today's battels revolve more around class than race. The Occupy Movement, which is actually an international movement, pointed out just some of the sins that those with wealth and power are committing in this current class warfare (click here). And though we helped further the economic apartheid by scapegoating the 1% rather than inviting them to join the rest of us, our accusations are being constantly confirmed by each day's headlines. And today's White moderates are those who prefer the serenity of today's status quo to the anxiety that comes with demanding change.
When we rose up, as seen in Occupy Wall Street and other encampments in 2011, there were so few of us that some of us subdivided the 99% into two groups: the 98% and those who occupied. Why the subdivision? It was because the absence of the 98% from the protests loomed as a greater threat to our work than the presence of police in riot gear. And it is because of this 98% that the message of the Occupy Movement has not borne more fruit than it has. For the current comfort seems to be far more important than justice to many if not all in the 98%. And the biggest shame here is on America's Conservative Church. For it has joined not only an idolatrous patriotism with the Christian faith, it has intimately embraced the conservative ideal of individualism as opposed to loving one's neighbor as Jesus described in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
To prove that the 98% has acted like the White moderates of King's day, one does not rest in the 98%'s their rejection of today's direct actions. Rather, proof can be seen in their steadfast refusal to practice in any legal action that challenges today's status quo. For they're turning their back on participating in legal protests, they are refusing to vote for third party candidates when it is obvious that the two major parties have been bought and paid for, and they abstain from spending any significant time in even reading about the injustices which the system they benefit from inflicts on others. Those actions are the least one can do to change our world. But, rather than letting the cries of the afflicted flame the fires of urgency, the 98% prefers to preserve their own place in the status quo.
Certainly injustice has always been a part of human history but that is not the issue here. The issue is how do we respond to injustice. This issue becomes even more pertinent to those of us who are Christians because the God we claim to worship is heavily invested in pursuing justice. But unfortunately, our individualism redirects our focus from justice for others to what we personally hope to gain from our faith--that is we hope to be saved from wrath. Thus, those of us who are Christians cripple the credibility of the Gospel when we are content to be part of the 98% or the White moderates of King's day or the German citizens who tolerated their Nazi rulers by turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the plight and pleas of those who are suffering from injustice.
So, again, the issue becomes how are we going to respond to the injustices suffered by others. Are we going to resist or we will become the biggest part of the problem?
Friday, July 12, 2013
Does The Gospel Of Individual Salvation Save Us From The Call To Justice?
I have two pet peeves with the American Conservative Christian Church of which I am a member. My first problem with my fellow believers, especially its leaders, is that they tend to confirm rather than disprove the Left's contention that the Church is just another institution of indoctrination for the maintenance of the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power. For a large part, my fellow American Conservative Christians show the charge to be true by their silence in the face of domestic and foreign injustice. There is no movement in this church to change a political-economic system that relies on war and exploitation to thrive. There is no call by this church for those who create, maintain, or benefit from this system to repent. Here, the Church is like a dog that is needlessly confined to its yard by an invisible fence since it ignores the stranger lurking outside anyway.
Part of what feeds this apathy to confront the threat of the status quo is my second pet peeve with the same Church. That is that they preach the Gospel in a way that makes believing similar to clicking the "Add To Cart" for a product one is buying online. The American Christian Church has, for the most part, reduced being a follower of Christ to being a consumer. One believes as a way to purchase after-life insurance and then, because of the free grace being preached, one is free to live the life one wants as long as one does not break certain taboos. This blog has addressed this self-centered consumer gospel in past posts such as Righteouosly Selfish and Is The American Dream A Christian's Nightmare.
We are addressing this pet peeve again in this post by reviewing the sermon, Stop Playing At Meetings (click here for the sermon), given by Rev. Steve Constable, the senior pastor from Stony Point Reformed Presbyterian Church just outside of Richmond, Virginia. In this sermon, which was given on March 4, 2012, Constable, who is originally from England, preached on Amos 5: 14 - 27 and his basic message was to give a moment for pause to those who were comfortable for this is what Amos was doing. Amos wrote during a time of Israel's unfaithfulness to God and their unjust treatment to its vulnerable. Despite their shortcomings, the people felt safe and expected protection from God because of their religiosity.
It is at this point that Constable does us a service as he identifies four groups of people to whom Amos would preach judgment against if he were alive today. Those groups include, religious relativists, Universalists, triumphalists (that is those who believe that all Christians can be healthy and rich), and Evangelicals. But why would Constable include Evangelicals in this list? It is because some of us think that, on one hand, we already have a free get out of God's judgment pass because of our relationship with Jesus but, on the other hand, we live lives of self-indulgence. In other words, many of us Evangelicals could, to our surprise be left behind when the rapture comes. It is by naming this last group as being in danger of wrath that Constable escapes the American Conservative Christian trap of making the Gospel a consumer good to buy or win.
By naming Evangelicals as possibly being in danger of facing God's judgment, Constable gives a gift that keeps on giving for it is the first warning in a long time to us evangelicals that we cannot rest on assumptions, especially that of praying the "right" prayer saves us when we live in whichever way we want.
Constable then follows Amos's wakeup call with 3 real life applications of Amos's commands. The first was to seek God first and that this searching might have an inverse relation with how close we are to the Church. In addition, Constable continues with saying that when you seek God, He might take you to uncomfortable places. For some evangelicals then, God might be leading them to practice activism with atheists who have polar opposite political and world views. For myself, there are several uncomfortable places outside of activism that I might have to consider if I continue to seek God.
The next of Amos's commands that Constable comments on is the one that says "seek good and not evil." This point must be emphasized because for far too many fellow Christians, our salvation liberates us to enjoy consumption without end as long as, what was mentioned before, what we consume is not on a Christian taboo list. We must also be careful not to substitute practicing religion for seeking for God. That is, we are not to replace seeking God with religious causes or the good things in life. Seeking good rather than evil is comes from seeking God. So Constable substitutes a life of service to and reconciled relationships with others as a sign of a revival that comes from God.
Finally, Constable refers to Martin Luther King in Amos's last command to seek justice. Here, he exhorts us to work for justice and mercy for other people in everyday life. And we should also note that though seeking justice is barely mentioned in the sermon, it is still a command and a necessary part of Amos's message to Israel and God's message to us. Individual salvation does not free us from our obligations to seek justice for others.
To those unbelieving peace activists, this sermon might carry little weight. But it serves as a wakeup call for all of us American Conservative Christians who would be more disturbed over our eternal destination than over the committing of sin. That being broken by our own transgressions rather than merely being relieved from where one is not spending the afterlife is a mark of true belief. In saying all of this, Constable serves a powerful wakeup call to shake us out of those worldly comforts we often use as a substitute for fellowship with God. To do what Constable does here requires a delicate balancing act. For we must not shape the Gospel so that it is all too accommodating to the consumer enslaved American while stressing that salvation is through faith alone, not by works, and that faith comes from God.
Though this sermon does not include a call to challenge those benefiting most from the status quo to repent, his message here preserves the Gospel from becoming like any other object to be consumed by an already spoiled people. Such people flock to hear comfortable message that excuse them from serving God and others.
Part of what feeds this apathy to confront the threat of the status quo is my second pet peeve with the same Church. That is that they preach the Gospel in a way that makes believing similar to clicking the "Add To Cart" for a product one is buying online. The American Christian Church has, for the most part, reduced being a follower of Christ to being a consumer. One believes as a way to purchase after-life insurance and then, because of the free grace being preached, one is free to live the life one wants as long as one does not break certain taboos. This blog has addressed this self-centered consumer gospel in past posts such as Righteouosly Selfish and Is The American Dream A Christian's Nightmare.
We are addressing this pet peeve again in this post by reviewing the sermon, Stop Playing At Meetings (click here for the sermon), given by Rev. Steve Constable, the senior pastor from Stony Point Reformed Presbyterian Church just outside of Richmond, Virginia. In this sermon, which was given on March 4, 2012, Constable, who is originally from England, preached on Amos 5: 14 - 27 and his basic message was to give a moment for pause to those who were comfortable for this is what Amos was doing. Amos wrote during a time of Israel's unfaithfulness to God and their unjust treatment to its vulnerable. Despite their shortcomings, the people felt safe and expected protection from God because of their religiosity.
It is at this point that Constable does us a service as he identifies four groups of people to whom Amos would preach judgment against if he were alive today. Those groups include, religious relativists, Universalists, triumphalists (that is those who believe that all Christians can be healthy and rich), and Evangelicals. But why would Constable include Evangelicals in this list? It is because some of us think that, on one hand, we already have a free get out of God's judgment pass because of our relationship with Jesus but, on the other hand, we live lives of self-indulgence. In other words, many of us Evangelicals could, to our surprise be left behind when the rapture comes. It is by naming this last group as being in danger of wrath that Constable escapes the American Conservative Christian trap of making the Gospel a consumer good to buy or win.
By naming Evangelicals as possibly being in danger of facing God's judgment, Constable gives a gift that keeps on giving for it is the first warning in a long time to us evangelicals that we cannot rest on assumptions, especially that of praying the "right" prayer saves us when we live in whichever way we want.
Constable then follows Amos's wakeup call with 3 real life applications of Amos's commands. The first was to seek God first and that this searching might have an inverse relation with how close we are to the Church. In addition, Constable continues with saying that when you seek God, He might take you to uncomfortable places. For some evangelicals then, God might be leading them to practice activism with atheists who have polar opposite political and world views. For myself, there are several uncomfortable places outside of activism that I might have to consider if I continue to seek God.
The next of Amos's commands that Constable comments on is the one that says "seek good and not evil." This point must be emphasized because for far too many fellow Christians, our salvation liberates us to enjoy consumption without end as long as, what was mentioned before, what we consume is not on a Christian taboo list. We must also be careful not to substitute practicing religion for seeking for God. That is, we are not to replace seeking God with religious causes or the good things in life. Seeking good rather than evil is comes from seeking God. So Constable substitutes a life of service to and reconciled relationships with others as a sign of a revival that comes from God.
Finally, Constable refers to Martin Luther King in Amos's last command to seek justice. Here, he exhorts us to work for justice and mercy for other people in everyday life. And we should also note that though seeking justice is barely mentioned in the sermon, it is still a command and a necessary part of Amos's message to Israel and God's message to us. Individual salvation does not free us from our obligations to seek justice for others.
To those unbelieving peace activists, this sermon might carry little weight. But it serves as a wakeup call for all of us American Conservative Christians who would be more disturbed over our eternal destination than over the committing of sin. That being broken by our own transgressions rather than merely being relieved from where one is not spending the afterlife is a mark of true belief. In saying all of this, Constable serves a powerful wakeup call to shake us out of those worldly comforts we often use as a substitute for fellowship with God. To do what Constable does here requires a delicate balancing act. For we must not shape the Gospel so that it is all too accommodating to the consumer enslaved American while stressing that salvation is through faith alone, not by works, and that faith comes from God.
Though this sermon does not include a call to challenge those benefiting most from the status quo to repent, his message here preserves the Gospel from becoming like any other object to be consumed by an already spoiled people. Such people flock to hear comfortable message that excuse them from serving God and others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)