Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For January 20, 2016

This is just a periodic reminder that the comments published here will tend to have more errors than the blogposts due to the difference in time spending editing the two.


Jan 12

To Josh Wester and his review of the book One Nation Under God by Bruce Ashford and Chris Pappalardo. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

I can only comment on the subject of the book being reviewed and the review itself. The interjections of religion into politics has not always been rejected even by those on the Left. Martin Luther King Jr., for example, easily mixed the two in an acceptable way. But it seems that many of the attempts made by conservative Christians to act in the public square do not approach the public square in the same way King did. For when King approached the public square, he was not seeking a privileged position for his faith in society. Rather, he was seeking equality for those who were being marginalized either because of race or economic class. Thus his use of faith-based morals was widely accepted except by some conservative Christians who emphasized the rights of the individual.

So one way to critique the book One Nation Under God might be examined is whether or not the attempt to apply religious faith in the public square includes Christians, especially conservative ones, attempting to gain a priviieged position in society.

There are hints in this review that some degree of privilege for Christians is being sought despite the rejection of establishing a theocracy. First, when the review states the following:

In the first chapter, Ashford and Pappalardo skillfully locate the role of politics within the Bible’s master narrative. Following the tradition of Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920), they draw motivation for political action from the promise of restoration

we need to ask whose definition of restoration is being used. If it is a Christian definition of restoration, then those promoting this motivation are, in the end, seeking some kind of privileged position for Christianity in society.

Also, when the review states:

Recognizing the disastrous consequences of this trajectory, they argue that the church should retain its influence, albeit organically, over the state.

the word 'over' implies a hierarchical relationship between the Church and the state. Here we should note that the absence of theocracy does not imply the absence of privilege for Christianity in society. Theocracy is simply an extreme level of privielge for Christianity in society. So the absence of theocracy does not imply that Christians are not seeking any privileged position in society.

All of the above points to the current debate concerning the Church and state of how will the Church share society with others? Will it selectively seek a paternalistic relationship with the state where once society crossses certain lines in the sand, the Church attempts to regain control? This is part of what the debate around the legalization of Same-Sex Marriage was about. Or will conservative Christians seek to share society with others as equals while the Church, both as individuals and the organization, reserves the right to preach repentance in social justice issues--that was what Martin Luther King Jr. did. All of this points to just one of several ways by which the book referenced above could be critiqued.

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

Though the comment below was blocked on the Gospel Coalition website, it was not blocked on the website of the author of the article being responded to.  The author's blog is the following: 

http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2016/01/islam_and_the_same_god_questio.html

Jan 16

To Lydia McGrew and her blogpost contradicting Wheaton professor’ Hawkins’ statement claiming that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

If one reads the theological statement made by Hawkins regarding this question, one is forced to ask why Wheaton College finds her statement to be beyond what should be allowable for a Christian faculty member who teaches political science. With regard to whether we, that is Christians and Muslims, worship the same God, Hawkins response is that it depends on the context. If the context involves the trinity, the answer is obviously a 'no.' But if the context involves the nature of God being one and the historical God of Abraham, the answer is 'yes' (see http://drlaryciahawkins.org/2016/01/06/theological-statement-by-dr-hawkins/  )

Now McGrew challenges, whether knowingly or not, this division by asking why are some parts of God are necessary for His proper identification and others are not. But what if we take her approach and ask if Calvinists and Arminians worship the same God. If the answer is yes, then we must ask why the Calvinist conception of God's sovereignty is not a necessary part of believing in God while other parts are. And this is the dilemma we face in terms of being classified as a Christian. For we could ask how could Calvinists who see God  as knowing the future because it is based on His decree be the  same God as the one worshipped by Arminians who see God as knowing all things because he is like a weather forecaster who never errs. Doesn't this example both touch on a critical part of God and thus meet the Superman/Clark Kent analogy used by McGrew here?

The answer to the question of whether all people are our brothers and sisters poses the same kind of problem. If the context focuses on Adam as being the father of all people, then the answer is 'yes.' But if we are talking about being born again, then the answer is 'no.'

So the question is this: does the context of Hawkins' theological statement make her beliefs acceptable? Here acceptable does not have to mean that her beliefs are inerrant. All acceptable has to mean is that we, despite disagreements or errors we could find in her statement, consider her to be a sister in Christ. After all, the overall context of her actions and statements was that of showing solidarity with Muslims here as a way of supporting those who are being persecuted because of bigotry. And so all she was doing was trying to show ties that we Christians have with Muslism in order to give reasons for fellow Christians not to  attack Muslims. And she is giving reasons why Christians should defend Muslims. McGrew's article here attempts to minimize the significance of the context of Hawkins' statement. McGrew's article is an attempt to decontextualize Hawkins' statements.

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

Jan 18

To Tim Keller and his article on how legalism and antinomianism affect our understanding of sanctification. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Besides the Marrow controversy, there is another point of conflict we need to weigh through when settling the legalism vs antinomian issue. That point of conflict is between Matthew 5:17-20 and Acts 15:10.  For inthe former we see the necessity of the law; in the latter you see the Apostles declaring that the law was impossible to follow. And another interesting comparison is to compare some of Jesus' teaching with some of the instructions written by the Apostles. For example, Paul contrasts being in the Spirit with trying to follow the law. All of this tells me that there is something we're missing in the discussion about legalism and antinomianism.


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

Jan 19

To Bruce Edward Walker and his blogpost using a CBS news video to criticize the demand for labeling GMOs. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

The video relies on an all-or-nothing approach to GMOs. Show one case where GMOs have been helpful does tell us that to ban all GMOs would be wrong. But that one case does not imply that all GMOs are safe.

In addition, while the video asks if any person has lost their life due to the consumption of GMOs, no research is listed. So we don't know if how long or how that question has been studied if it has been studeied at all. However, I do believe that consumption of GMOs by rats has been somewhat researched and it is controversial. The study did show that the growth of tumors followed the consumption of GMOs (see http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html). However, the journal that pubished the study retracted it because of problems with the data sample used ( see  http://www.nature.com/news/study-linking-gm-maize-to-rat-tumours-is-retracted-1.14268).

Likewise, the list of the percentages of scientists and organizations that approve the use of GMOs suggests that GMOs are safe. However, no listing of research articles was provided.

Finally, one of the key complaints about the use of GMOs has been the increased use of pesticides which translates into the increased use of pesticides in our food supply. These pesticides can be divided into herbicides and insecticides. And though the results are not always consistent across all kinds of crops, the use of GMOs has shown to increase the use of pesticides (see http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24  and http://ecowatch.com/2014/09/29/gmo-crops-accelerate-herbicide-insecticide/). Apparently this issue was passed over by the video.

So what we are being told here is that the labeling of GMO products is not only unnecessary, it is harmful to business because we consumer scannot be trusted to make responsible decisions for ourselves with that information. And we are being told that despite the fact that specific research work and articles on the subject were never cited by the video and despite the fact that research on the health benefits of GMOs is relatively young.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on 5 facts about Martin Luther King Jr. This appeared in the Acton blog.

5 additional facts about Martin Luther King are worthy mentioning.

1. He stated that materialism seen in the West's Capitalism was as dangerous as the materialism seen in the USSR's Communism. (see bage 95 of this link: http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/ows/seminars/aahistory/Pilgrimage.pdf )

2. He saw changing the structure of the American society and economy as a necessary part of compassion to those in need (in his speech against the Vietnam War, see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm ).

3. He opposed American Capitalism because of how it distributed wealth (see page 213 of Tavis Smiley's biography of Martin Luther King Jr., Death Of A King).

4. King opposed racism, economic exploitation and poverty, and war and militarism. In his speech against the Vietnam War, he described them as being inseperably linked in a 'thing-oriented' society where gadgets, profits, and property rights were more important than people (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm ).

5. he believed in a guaranteed income for all Americans (see http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/King_Where.htm ).


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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how growth rates explain the wealth disparity between nations. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

Overall growth that is based on what Chris Hedges calls 'sacrifice zones' so that not only does the economy grow, but so does wealth disparity, is not flourishing. And if we go to many of our cities, identifying those parts of the city, if not the whole city itself, that have been abandoned to pursue growth elsewhere is all too obvious, but not trivial. This wealth disparity isn't between nations; it is in the same nation. And the US has one of the greatest wealth disparities among developed nations in the world. Such disparity does not help even the richest citizen to flourish because growing at someone else's expense shows a poverty of spirit.

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

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on the effects of the Great Awakening on The Constitution. This appeared in the Acton Blog.


What drove the need for The Constitution was both similar and different from what drove the need for the Revolution. For whereas both involved a reaction against the rule of elites. the Revolution was a rebellion against foreign elites while The Constitution was an elite reaction to a rebellion against themselves.The 2nd Amendment and Constitutional references to the militia, as well as Knox's letter to George Washington, Federalist 10, and Yates' notes on the Constitutional debates provide evidence to this contention.

If we take the 2nd Amendment and other Constitutional references to the militia, we see that our 2nd Amendment rights were written in the context of the need for a militia. And, according to The Constitution, Congress was to provide for arming and training the militia while the President was its commander and chief. And the purpose of the militia was to both repel enemy invasions and put down insurrections. At least that is what a strict Constitutionalist should say.

Federalist #10 as well as the Constitutional debates speak against innovation, that is that they speak against changing the status quo, and seek to promote a government that protects 'the minority of the opulent against the majority' (see Madison's June 26th comments in the debates at  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp ).

And of course the historical event that triggered the writing of The Constitution was Shays Rebellion along with the widespread dissent that existed at that time.

If the Great Awakening played a role in the writing of The Constitution, then it was to protect the current status of American elites. BTW, as for the First Amendment, that came after the writing of the first edition of The Constitution And we should note that the reason for joining the "Civic Evangelicals" with the "Free Church Evangelicals" came during the Revolutionary War where the number of people needed to serve as soldiers was critical.

ONIM For Jan 27, 2014

Christian News

• 'No Excuses' For Failed Syria Peace Talks -- Christian Today (UK)
• Persecution Predicted To Rise In North Korea -- Christian Today (UK)
• Welsh Churches Assess Response To Violence Against Women -- Christian Today (UK)
• The Foreign Policy Mission Of American Evangelicals -- Christianity Today
• The Book Thief: Being Human In The Midst Of Inhumanity -- Christianity Today
• A Local Pastor Turned Public School Champion -- Christianity Today
• Non-Christians' Favorite Bible Verse -- The Christian Post
• March For Life Focuses On Adoption As Best Option -- The Christian Post
• Global LGBT Recap: Religious Leaders Support Persecution As Countries Vie In Homophobic Olympics -- Religion Dispatches
• Are Liberals Too Special To Go To Church -- Religion Dispatches

World News

• Report Details 'Industrial' Killing Of 11,000 In Assad Jails -- Yahoo News
• Violence Escalates At Ukraine Anti-Government Protests -- Yahoo News
• What Did Our Wars Win -- Yahoo News
• Olympic Icon Carl Lewis Offers Unique Political Perspective On Chris Christie -- Yahoo Sports
• Ukraine Tracks Protesters Through Cell Phones -- New York Times
• Freed Russian Oppositional Artists to Visit NYC To Help Prisoners -- Bloomberg
• Are You Opposed To Fracking? Then You Might Just Be A Terrorist -- The Guardian
• Shell Oil To Attack Democracy With Lawsuit Over Ban Again Oil Drilling -- Santa Fe New Mexican
• MLK Rally Honors More Radical King -- Portland Occupier
• People Have Always Thought The Poor Were Lazy Degenerates -- Demos
• Ukraine Violence: Riot Police Beat Up Protesters In Kiev -- Youtube
• A New Physics Theory Of Life -- Quanta Magazine
• Two Earthquakes Strike Near Guam; No Tsunami Alerts -- Extinction Protocol
• What Recovery? US Retail Stores Now In Grim Death Spiral -- Extinction Protocol

Pick Of The Litter

• Activists Halt Monsanto Seed Plant Construction In Argentina -- Natural Society
  
  

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?

Why We Should Choose Pacifism Instead Of Violence

The PoliticalJesus blog is having an internet pacifism synchroblog, a pot-luck supper of blog posts, and the following is my attempt to bring a dish to the party.

We should note that we have to make a few distinctions first. Pacifism is not passivism. Pacifism is the commitment to handle and solve conflicts without violence. Passivism is responding to a problem or conflict by singing "Que Sera, Sera." While pacifism attempts to resolve a problem, the passivism anticipates that the problem is more preferable than the costs of solving the problem. So while the former works for justice, the latter prefers to maintain the status quo in order to avoid becoming a target.

One of the most renowned activists, Mahatma Gandhi, was a pacifist who strongly objected to passivism. He chose nonviolent methods to provoke unjust responses by those who dominated and oppressed others in order to help them to see the error of their ways. In contrast to Gandhi, a passivist prefers to let sleeping dogs lie. A pacifist, such as Gandhi, dares to both take risks and make sacrifices for the sake of justice. A passivist endures all kinds of injustice done to either oneself or others for the sake of one's own comfort.

That being said, I count 3 principles that should govern one's approach to using peaceful means to resolve conflicts. The first principle is that pacifism cannot always be used to resolve conflicts. Some conflicts have gone too far and some opponents are too unreachable to respond to peaceful tactics. But those conflicts with antagonists should be very few and far between. In other words, one can still be a pacifist even though there are times where one resorts to violence if the use of violence in a conflict is necessary and a very rare exception.  

There are two reasons why pacifism should not be considered to be an absolute principle . The first reason is Biblical. If we declare that pacifism is an absolute principle, then the Bible is no longer our canon, our final measure, for what is right. Rather, our human conception of what pacifism becomes the measure by which the Bible must measure up to. Our human concept of pacifism then becomes our canon and the Bible is relegated to being either a human product or a waxed nose that is shaped by one's absolute notion of pacifism. 

The second reason has to do with the credibility of the pacifist way to solving problems. As was written before, many famous pacifists from the past and present were not absolutists about pacifism. Martin Luther King, for example, believed it was justified to use violence to protect one's family from those who would break into one's home. Chomsky believed that we had to fight WW II even though he also believed that we had not done enough to prevent the war. The point here is that most people understand that violence is sometimes required to either establish or restore justice. Thus, when we present the pacifist solution as the only solution, we lose the chance to even partially win people over to a pacifist position because what we present is not realistic.

The second principle on which pacifism should be based is our treatment of others partially reveals how we are treating God. We know this because each person is made in the image of God. This includes every adversary and competitor, each person whom we count as being invisible, each one of our friends, and each person in our family. And though we are sorely tempted to measure our love for God solely by how we treat those whom we love or belong to, our regard for non loved ones is a very accurate barometer of our love for God. We know this from Jesus's parable of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25:31-46). We know this from John's epistle when he says that you can't love God and hate your brother (I John 4:20). And though one could rightly complain that those passages refer to fellow believers, the Good Samaritan parable blows up the exclusion of nonbelievers in using how we treat others as a measure for how we love God (Luke 10: 25-37).

When we see what God demands of us in terms of how we regard and treat those we come in contact with, how can we not see violence as being our very last choice? But note that how God demands that we treat each other should move us to treat conflicts by preemptively eliminating stumbling blocks and working for each other's welfare than waiting for conflicts and opponents to emerge.

This loving others should not be confused with avoiding confrontations, however. This is why we must distinguish between pacifism and passivism. There are times to confront. And sometimes that confrontation can appear to be harsh. But God knows our hearts and knows when we confront out of love and when we confront sinful reasons. John the Baptist confronted Herod about his sin (Luke 3:19). Paul confronts Peter about living a double standard (Galations 2:11-13). And Paul instructs the church at Corinth on how to discipline a man caught in sexual sin (I Cor 5). But this last example shows the intent of the confrontation. The reason for Paul telling the Corinthians to discipline this man is so that he could repent. And once he repents, Paul tells the Corinthians to embrace him as a brother.

Most of our personal confrontations will be verbal. And here, we could extend to our words what Martin Luther King Jr extended to violence. That is just because the violence was not external doesn't mean that there was no violence. King was adamant that those working for justice were to avoid internal violence as well as external violence. Here, King states that pacifism isn't just practiced by refraining from using violent actions, but it is practiced by refraining from using hurtful words from our mouths and holding on to spiteful attitudes in our spirits. So refraining from physical violence does not make one a pacifist if one exercises verbal violence or harbors hatred. Jesus tells us this in Matthew 5:22.

However, what does Biblical pacifism between nations look like? It isn't just the absence of war and violence, it includes preventing or eliminating conflicts by addressing the legitimate concerns of each country or group within a country. It is eliminating the need for conflict as well as the extreme reluctance to use violence once a dispute arises.

Of course, much, if not all, that we say in favor of pacifism receives a hearty but conditional "AMEN" from most people. It is hearty because people respect the intent of those who are pacifists. They admire our idealism.  It is conditional, however, because they think of pacifism as being too idealistic for the real world. 

How practical and realistic is pacifism? That depends on one's goals and aspirations. If a nation's goal is to establish an empire, control other countries, or accumulate as much wealth as possible regardless of the price which others pay, then pacifism is not practical. So it isn't realistic to expect those nations or groups that lust for wealth and power to rely on pacifism. But what about the other nations? Will pacifism provide an adequate defense against aggressor nations or groups?

To answer this question, let's consider the use of violence to defend oneself in today's world. First, we should note that once violence is used, stopping the cycle of violence comes only after one or both sides pay a very high price. In today's modern warfare, that price is mostly paid by civilians. That is because the weapons of the powerful will be so destructive that civilian deaths are inevitable while the weapons of the weak will be aimed at civilian because it is suicide to aim them at a powerful military. Just as non-pacifists want to insist that pacifism is not a realistic option, once armed conflict breaks out, inhumane suffering by many civilians becomes inevitable. This is shown by the most recent conflicts including the ones we have been engaged in despite the precision of our weapons. 

But even more real than that is the fact that in this age of an ever advancing and adulterous technology, the proliferation of WMDs is inevitable. As this proliferation proceeds, the continued use of violence to obtain a goal increases the probability that retaliation will include the use of WMDs. Even if it is a single WMD is used, the response will not only include WMDs, a precedent for using WMDs will have been established. 

For slightly different reasons, the Russell-Einstein Manifesto declares that we have a clear and "inescapable" choice to either abolish war or to embrace extinction. Here, Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein were only considering the chances of surviving war when only the USSR and the US had WMDs.  How much more is it true for tomorrow, if not for today, once proliferation is complete? Here, we should note that we need not be the target of someone's WMDS, such as nuclear weapons, for all of us to suffer greatly or be killed. That is because the after effects of using enough nuclear weapons could cause the extinction of people. We should add that Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein were not the only ones to have reached the conclusion that we must choose between war and survival, Martin Luther King and JFK also believed this to be true.

All of this says that pacifism provides a more realistic chance at surviving the future than a continual reliance on war. That is because in the age of proliferation, it is extremely idealistic to think we can continue to survive while resolving conflicts the "good old fashioned" way. 

Pacifism can work on the international scene if both all countries, including the most powerful ones, submit to international courts with the same rule of law and people unite across borders to hold their own governments accountable for their foreign policies. In other words, we must change from relying on nationalism to relying on law and internationalism for security. To refuse to change is to deny the new ball game that WMDs have introduced. And perhaps part of the denial is due to refusing to relinquish the privileges that living in a nation with a powerful military provides. 

The Circles Of Love

There is a troubling tendency among some preachers whether they be liberals and conservatives. The problem is there is a growing tendency to using single passages from the Bible as the basis for a topical sermon. The clear implication made by those who do this is that the single passage being cited contains everything that the Bible has to say on a given topic. This is a great technique for those who favor bully pulpit to push favorite causes, but it also traps trusting parishioners unawares.

The not ready for topical sermon passage I am thinking of today is John 13:35 where Jesus tells his disciples that they will know them by how they love one another. When used as the basis for a topical sermon, the implication is that we are to proclaim God's love to the world primarily by how we love fellow believers. This would give us permission, if not encourage us, to live as much like the Amish as possible while trying to fulfill the Great Commission. We would then be reaching out to the world by asking them to be voyeurs as we perform in a soundproof glass room where we fellowship with and serve people who most resemble us. However, if we read through the rest of the Bible, we see that there additional ways to show that we belong to Jesus

This passage in John brings us to the subject of whom should we love. As life would have it, there is  more than one group to love; there are four, as illustrated in the above "circles." We are commanded to love 3 of them while love for self is assumed (see Matthew 22:39).

After loving ourselves, we are to love those in our various tribes. For our purposes here, we can think of a tribe as any group to which we belong such as family, church, business, school, political party, nation, and any group that revolves around an activity or an ideology. Outside of self-love, this is the second easiest love to summon from ourselves in part because we are loving those who either resemble us or give us something of value. A very common example that is treasured by some idealists is the love for one's nation. In fact, giving one's life for one's nation is, in America, all too often seen as next to godliness. Of course, some of the even more ardent patriots may not love every citizen of his or her country. Tom Lehrer's satirical song National Brotherhood Week poked fun at both the divisions of people that can exist in a country and superficial efforts to bridge these gaps.

We should note the dangers of tribal love and most of these dangers are because people are content not to extend love to those outside their tribes. One danger is being reluctant to use necessary moral absolutes to judge the behaviors of those from one's own group. This is especially true when hostilities are taking place. Another danger is the belief that as long as one takes care of their own, they can excuse themselves from fulfilling moral obligations to all others. This danger is an ethic of many who embrace a mob or gang mentality but it is also embraced, in varying degrees, by those who revel in patriotism. The thinking here is that as long as I take care of my people, I have fulfilled my obligations and can either neglect others or even abuse others.

However, Jesus calls us to love and serve those from two additional groups who, as the above picture illustrates, are a farther distance from ourselves than those from one from our tribes. In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus is asked what is the greatest commandment. Jesus, in the spirit of generosity, gave the questioner two and, according to Him, the commandments were close. We are to love God with our whole being (vs 37) and we are to love our neighbor as ourselves (vs 39). The word neighbor may at first sound like a return to tribalism but that is until we read Jesus's explanation in Luke 10:25-37. There, a pharisee asked Jesus who was one's neighbor. In response, Jesus taught the parable of the Good Samaritan. And according to that parable, those who cross our path and are in need are our neighbors. Thus, this parable challenges us to reach farther from ourselves to love. We are to love those who are different from us.

The last group whom Jesus tells us to love are our enemies (Matthew 25:46-47). Now just because we will have different feelings for those who anger and attack us than those who care about us does not mean we cannot love them. Martin Luther King talked about this difference in caring when he was alive. He was a realist and realized that we might not any affection for our enemies. But that does not mean that we are not to return love for hate. Jesus tells us to care and pray for them and this is regardless of how they have treated us. According to King, we are to avoid responding to them with either external or internal violence, which means that that we are avoid hurting or hating them. We are directed to hope and work for their welfare.

At the beginning of this post, we talked about how people will know we are Christ's disciples by how we love our brothers and sisters in Christ. And yet, this is not the only indication that we belong to Christ. When Jesus talked about loving one's enemies, He described it as a way by which we will distinguish ourselves from the world. This is because, as Jesus said, even the godless love their own.

Is there a conflict between John 13:35 and Matthew 5:46-47 here in how we let the world know who we are? There is only when we think in exclusive-or terms. We need to realize that both passages tell us to imitate Him by our love for others. In John 13, Jesus describes how we should love fellow believers and in Matthew 5, we are told whom to love. For Christ came to earth to die for those who, at the time, were His enemies (Romans 5:10).

Love can help bring peace to the earth. But it can only do that when we expand love's borders way beyond our comfort zones. For our love to help foster peace, we must extend it way past the people we hang with. We must love those whose need calls us to be uncomfortable. We must force ourselves, when necessary, to help meet the needs of those strangers who cross our paths. In addition, we must show our enemies that a new relationship is possible. If we meet their hate with the kind of love God shows us in Christ, we have a chance to reduce the hate and violence in the world. If we respond in kind, we show that we belong to the world rather than to Christ.

It is to the Conservative Church's shame that it is restrained from showing Biblical love to strangers and its enemies by the tractor beam of tribal loyalties. The stronger the beam, the less we travel to the outer circles of people to love.  In particular, family, patriotism, loyalty to ideology, and preference for those who share our religion cause us to treat people with preference rather than love Not only is this sin in and of itself (James 2:9), it dishonors Christ especially when non-Christians show this kind of love. This discrepancy causes dissonance and hurts the credibility of the Gospel. And yet, it is a dissonance that is in our faces as some from the Left are not just calling us, but are also laying their own freedoms and even lives on the line for others by challenging those with wealth and power. Unfortunately, this is a spectator's sport to most Conservative Christians who have nested themselves in their cocoons of doctrines and confessions fervently hoping for the rapture to come before time forces them out into the world.

This article was written partially because of my interactions with a fellow blogger and activist, Tom Over. Visit his blog at lovecause.org/

Building Our Own Tower Of Babel

Genesis 11 contains the story of the Tower of Babel. The people were wandering and had decided to build a city and tower as a tribute to themselves. In the midst of their building, God saw what it could lead to too power and thus He stopped them by causing them to speak in different languages so that people could not understand each other. This limited what they could do together.

Part of this story of the Tower of Babel is currently relived everyday. We constantly build edifices as self-praise to an imagined sense of significance. We are forever building tributes, idols to worship and bow down to, that reflect our magic mirror image. But there is one difference between today's Towers of Babel and the original. That difference is whereas with the first Tower of Babel, confusion came with the onset of different languages. In contrast, our confusion is found in a revised, self-flattering history.  

Two recently built Towers of Babel can be found in the Pentagon's observance of Martin Luther King. According to the speakers, outgoing Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, and Air Force retired Major General, Marcelite J. Harris, Martin Luther King's contributions came from his fight against racial inequality and how he inspired people to reach their potential. What was absent in any mention of King during these speeches is his fight against economic injustice and militarism--both of which he found linked to racism. There is good reason for these omissions. These omissions would be damning to the images of the nation and institutions the speakers belong to.

For those who think that King opposed racism only, please consider the following. At significant risk, Martin Luther King publicly opposed the Vietnam War effort. For this, he was not only further criticized by his opponents, he was suffered a certain alienation from some friends and allies. In addition, he was told that he was hurting the cause of racial equality.

Also consider when King was assassinated, he was confronting economic injustice; he was standing with the Memphis garbage collectors and their quest for fair pay. That is when King was assassinated. And to bring this point out would again discredit the institutions and nation that retired Major General Harris and then Secretary of Defense Panetta serve.

Thus neither Secretary of Defense Panetta and retired Major General Harris were only able to pay homage to the Martin Luther King who did not exist, to the man who opposed racial inequality only. This is because to fully honor Martin Luther King would mean to draw a critical eye on those whom they serve. To fully honor King, they would have criticize the military for taking more than its fair share of our nation's budget and resources. And to fully honor King, they would have to criticize their country's economic system because of the inequity it promotes. But because their real masters meant more to them than Martin Luther King and his passions, they used King to serve their masters rather than to challenge them.

We see a furthering of our problems in this year's State Of The Union Address (See here). According to that speech, the only faults that President Obama could see in our nation is that politicians put political party interests above national interests and that too many people and things are in need.

The problem here is that pursuing divergent party interests could be seen merely as disagreements by different groups who are trying to solve our nations problems. Never is the admission made that many of our elected leaders have no interest in solving our nation's problems outside of those troubles experienced by their major campaign contributors. In other words, the fault that President Obama should have spotlighted here is that too many of our elected leaders put self-interest and the interests of their corporate sponsors ahead of the interests of people.

We might also mention that outside of putting party interests ahead of, undefined but assumed, national interests, our nation has only needs and struggles; we have no moral failures or sins. And it is this working denial of the true causes of our problems which only ensures that our struggles will not only persevere, they will grow.

Nothing illustrates this more than the increase in our military interventions during Obama's Presidency. When President Obama campaigned for the presidency in 2008, his criticisms of Bush's war policies never included any moral judgments. Rather, his criticisms were based on business criteria. He saw Bush's use of our military as being inefficient and ineffective. This led some on the Left to speculate that Obama could engage in a plethora of new wars so long as he saw our involvement as being business smart. Never mind that we sided with terrorists in Afghanistan in fighting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as well as violated the Nuremberg Principles when invading Iraq. So now we are stealthly involved in Africa, possibly sided with terrorists in the Libyan revolt, and assume the right to use drones to assassinate anyone in nations like Yemen and Pakistan with legal impunity. And our involvement in the Pakistan is only serving to destabilize a nation that has a significant stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Like the people from Genesis 11, our leaders are building our Towers of Babel as a self-tribute to themselves. Unlike the people from Genesis 11, they do this with words and the more we respond with silence, the more we become as complicit in building those towers as those who laid the brick and mortar in the  first Tower of Babel. And another difference is that while God sent confusion on the original builders while they were in the middle of their work; our towers of Babel start on a foundation of confusion and lies. The above contains only a partial listing.

The lie we must confront is one that says, though we have faults, we do not sin. That is because our motto follows the theme of every State Of The Union address--we must be praised. So if we must be praised, we cannot admit to sin. But the rub is that while we cannot admit to sin, we can't start solving the problems that so gravely threaten us. Another lie we must confront says that America is exceptional and is thus above the moral judgment of all other nations. Claiming to be special is normal. And the list of atrocities committed by our nation is long and known to the rest of the world.

We have one more problem that acts as the final nail on our nation's coffin. That problem is that those who should know best, our nation's Christians, are too busy reveling in patriotism and pride to speak the truth that some nonChristians have already discovered. That truth is that much of our nation's wealth has been built on the back of others and that our exceptionalism is seen more in our power than our principles. Thus, we will eventually be the cause of our own demise and the only advantage that our own Towers Of Babel will serve is that at least we will go down singing.

A New Year's Resolution For the American Conservative Christian

The following is an effortless attempt to use alliterations to illustrate the biggest flaw I see in my fellow American Conservative Christians. When it comes to authority and authority figures, Conservative Christians prefer to cowardly cower rather than to be courageously combative.

What do I mean here? What I mean is that American Conservative Christians refuse to stand up to those with authority when they abuse others. Such Christians neither resist nor encourage others to do so. Why? It is because they cop out of their Gospel given responsibility to confront sin.

Of course these Christians have an excuse or an apologetic. Romans 13, such Christians say, tells us obey all who are in authority. So though some might wish to do otherwise, they are bound by the Scriptures to uncritically do what authority figures command. Of course there is a caveat in this command to submit to all in authority. Here, we are allowed disobey the authorities if they forbid us from preaching the Gospel or if they command us to do something immoral. However, if the authorities are treating others unjustly, according to American Christian Conservatives, we are not to say a word to the authorities while we are to tell the oppressed to take a lap and suck it up.

What could be more cowardly than to be silent in the face of evil? And indeed, Christians are told to preach against being evil. But Conservative Christians are told to do that only if the evil being confronted is a personal sin, like sex outside of a heterogeneous, monogamous marriage. According to  Conservative Christians, when the authorities pillage, rob, and kill, we are to be good little boys and girls and look the other way. And if we do that, the authorities will leave us alone and we get to keep of our possessions that we hold so dear. It is here we see the real reason why Conservative Christians submit to unrighteous authorities; it is for selfishness rather than selflessness.

Of course, only Conservative Christians are blind to their own cowardice and lack of love here. Such practices show both an utter failure to represent the Gospel and a fearful desire of failing the god of mammon. And as they distort the infinitely rich Gospel they claim to serve, they cause those outside of their small circle to view that Gospel with scorn as is described in Romans 2:23-24.

So there can only be one resolution American Conservative Christians should make for this New Year's. That resolution is to grow some faith in order to muster the courage it takes to confront the evil practiced by those in authority. Of course courage is needed because those in authority, whether they be from the private or public sector, can seek revenge.

Now since Conservative Christians have been spending all of their time obeying authorities, how would they know how to act on any newfound courage to resist authorities who practice evil? After all, even if they did not use parts of the Bible like Romans 13 as a shield for their selfishness and faintheartedness when it comes to failing to preach repentance to those with authority, Romans 13 does install limits on how we are to regard those in authority who practice evil.

So how should the Conservative Christian be faithful to both biblical duties of challenging abusive authorities to repent while respecting their source of authority? Martin Luther King faced this question when determining what would be the Biblical response to the unjust discrimination laws in the South during his time. His solution was that certain laws had to be broken either because they were unjust or in order to draw attention to other unjust laws. And when those in authority came to enforce those laws, King directed those with him to peacefully submit to arrest and the legal penalties. When King referred to "peacefully submitting," he was telling those with him to void themselves of both external and internal violence. Internal violence referred to attitudes that desired to lash out at those making arrests. To King, such resistance showed more respect for the law and those in authority than not showing any resistance because one was to obey the authorities.

And it isn't that Christians needed to wait until Martin Luther King formulated this response to know what to do, we see Biblical heros confronting evil rulers from Moses vs Pharaoh all of the way to John the Baptist vs Herod and beyond. In the Bible, God's spokespeople constantly preach against ALL who practiced evil. And since they did, it is time for those who claim to follow the Bible more literally than all others to do the same.

Too Many Rules, Too Little Heart

I go to an Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) in the Allentown area. I would say it is a small church but that would be redundant; all OPC churches are small, at least that I know of.  Like all churches, it has its strengths and weaknesses. A couple of Sundays ago, we heard a sermon on Biblical rules for music. The foundation for the sermon Biblical rules for music came from Colossians 3:16 and utilizes a common hermeneutical principle of reducing what the Scriptures say about a subject to a single passage. For all of the rules on music that anyone could possibly ever wish for were stated in that one verse, according to the minister.

A few weeks before that, the minister preached a sermon on being both heavenly minded and earthly good based on the beginning of Colossians 3. And, again, the minister emphasized how what was stated in the beginning  of Colossians 3 was the complete list of rules for all who wish to be earthly good to follow. And the rules listed in this passage had to do with personal righteousness. There were no social justice practices mentioned

There are a couple of problems with this approach to interpreting the Bible. First, there is an assumption made in both passages that Paul's intent was to say everything to everyone about these subjects in a few verses. Thus, what Paul said to the Colossians is what he would say to every Christian regardless of the context. We should note that in Revelation, John wrote 7 different letters to 7 different churches.

But the most troublesome problem with my minister's approach, and he is not alone amongst Fundamentalists, is the eagerness to find, and thus depend on, more principles, rules, and laws to live by. In New Testament Greek, the same word is used for principle, rule and law. Whereas those who believe in too few to no laws are called antinomial, we could just as easily say that those Christians who wish to find an absolute law in every scripture verse are hypernomial--they are overzealous to live by a law.

Being hypernomial does not recognize the complicated relationship that exists between the Christian and the keeping of the law. On one hand, Jesus says that not a jot or title of the law shall fade while there is this present earth. On the other hand we see that the law condemns us and makes us aware of our sin and need for God. And on a third hand, we see a reduction in the hold that the law has on the growing Christian. The reason for this last assertion is that the work of the Spirit in our lives takes the place of the written law (Jeremiah 31:31ff and I Timothy 1:9) and so to continue to rely on the law is to rely on the flesh rather than the Spirit (Paul's letter to the Galations).

But there is another problem with too much zeal for the law or zeal for too many laws; after a certain threshold is reached, dependence on the law turns us inward. And the more inward we become, the more vigilant we become about our inward spiritual state. The more vigilant we become about ourselves, the less love we have for our neighbor and thus the more we break the law that requires that we practice a self-forgetting love modeled by Christ. Frederick Dale Bruner makes a similar point about those in the Charismatic Movement who put conditions on receiving the Spirit in full in his book, A Theology Of The Holy Spirit (see page 239). In fact, the more vigilant we become about ourselves, the more prone we are to be agitated by the outside world and thus the more likely we are to ignore it so as not to miss an important detail brought to our attention by the multiplicity of laws we are trying to keep.

This relationship between law and being self and inward directed works well for the traditional relationship between the Church and those with power and wealth. For the Left has long noted that the Church is just one of many institutions of indoctrination for the maintenance of the status quo. And it seems that the Conservative Church is doing all it can to prove the Left right. Along with the Church's reluctance, especially the Conservative Church, to upset the status quo by preaching repentance to those with power and wealth, this unnecessary Old Testament way of multiplying laws makes paying attention to public sins that must be confronted an unnecessary luxury, if not impossible, for the conscientious Christian.

For a different reason, the individual Christian and those in leadership commit the "crime of silence", as would be described by the Russell Tribunals of the past and present. The silence is in the face of the gross public immorality practiced by those with power and wealth and by those with authority in either the private or public sectors. Here we are not talking about a Clinton type of immorality where we saw a public figure commit a private sin. Rather, we are talking about public sins such as waging immoral wars for profit and prestige. Whereas the Conservative Church seems to even delight in confronting sexual immorality, whether private or public, it flees from commenting on immoral wars, immoral and corrupt political and economic systems, and unjust laws that hurt the weak.

Of course, Conservative Church leaders who are reluctant to confront those with power and wealth about their public sins fall back on Biblical passages such as the 13th chapter of Romans which says that we should honor and obey all who are in authority to rationalize their silence. And yet, these same leaders, who were disturbed by Martin Luther King's use of civil disobedience for the sake of others are remarkably silent when it comes to condemning our nation's founding fathers who violently rebelled for selfish reasons. We could ask such Conservative Christian leaders if those Germans who resisted Hitler and his Nazi government on their own and without the help of a foreign government were violating what was commanded in Romans 13.

It is not that Conservative Christian leaders have no merit in confronting the personal sins of individuals. There is much heartbreak that follows many of the personal sins we take for granted. It is their reluctance to speak out publicly against the sins of those with power and wealth that is the issue here. If Bertrand Russell was correct in saying silence is a crime, then the Conservative Christian Church, because of its silence, should be on Interpol's 10 most wanted list. For whether it is the oppression and theft that is a natural part of today's Capitalism, the assumption to wage war and murder with impunity made by the West including Israel, or the destruction of the environment, the Conservative Christian Church has washed its hands of any responsibility to preach repentance to the perpetrators. And they often do this in the name of submission to authority or following "honorable" ideals such as patriotism.

We started with an example of how one conservative pastor, who definitely does not stand alone, who is piling law after law on people making it difficult for them to pay necessary attention to the outside world. Again, such pastors have significant truths to teach us. But they also have powerful lessons to learn as well. For we see in Isaiah chapters 58 and 59, that "lawful" worship is sometimes rejected by God especially when his people neglect those in need and allow justice to go by the wayside and truth to fall in the streets. Such negligence can never be redeemed by practicing "good form" in worship. For when this occurs, there is only one way to salvation, as Isaiah put it, or to know God, as Jeremiah put it in Jeremiah 22. That is, while believing in Christ for salvation, one must take up the cause of those who suffer from neglect and/or oppression.

Some might confuse what was just written as a gospel of works. That because we are saved by "faith alone," the above statements are not only wrong, they are dangerous. And yet, the same Christians who would make these criticisms would have no trouble telling young Christians that they must abandon serious personal sins such as sexual immorality to prove that their faith is real. Consider then what Jesus said in the parable of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25:31-46). Jesus invited those who selflessly helped those in need, those whom Jesus called the "least of these," into His heavenly dwelling while those who neglected those in need were rejected.

At this point we should also note what it means to help or even stand with the least of these. It certainly includes personal charity. But, as Martin Luther King pointed out, it also includes changing those systems that create the need in the first place. As Bonhoeffer lived and pointed out, there are at least three ways by which this can done. One can challenge the state regarding its policies. One can stand with those who are suffering. And one can "put a spoke in the wheel" of the system that so persecutes the vulnerable. It is time that the Conservative Christian Church carefully consider both the Biblical examples of and call to helping those who suffer from neglect and/or oppression as well as the examples and words of those from the Church. To live too focussed on oneself, as much as the Conservative Church encourages its members to do, is not only to miss the chance to relieve others of their suffering, it could endanger one's own future as well.

Reviewing The Loneliness Of The Truth Teller

The article, The Loneliness Of The Truth Teller, is written by a friend of a friend of mine. The good and bad news here is that the title says it all. The title tells us a very important truth that most of us prefer not to hear. That, all too often, telling the truth isolates us from others, even from those we love. This is because the truth exposes the man behind the curtain. Truth shows us the underside of how we get what we want. Truth challenges our love for power and earthly treasure.

The bad news is that the detailed explanation of why the truth teller is by himself is what's missing from this article. Another missing in action item is the use of current examples of lonely truth tellers. Bradley Manning has been internally exiled into loneliness because of his truth telling. When Martin Luther King criticized the Vietnam war, his popularity plummeted showing another example of how loneliness can threaten a truth teller. But some have suffered far more than loneliness. King was later shot by a sniper when working for economic justice. Gandhi was felled when working for reconciliation. Sophie Scholl was executed for trying to start a revolt against the Nazis. Oscar Romero and his Jesuit associates were slaughtered for helping the wrong people, the poor. Rachel Corrie was plowed under by a bulldozer when she was protecting a Palestinian home from demolition. Anna Politkovskaya was assassinated for shedding light on the brutal state terrorism that was occurring in Chechnya.

Thus we see truth telling can bring more than isolation, it can cause death. When does truth telling  make us a social wallflower and when does it threaten our life? It depends on the audience. We are usually, but not always, safe when preaching truth to peers. But one takes one's own life into their hands when one scolds wealth and power.

Though the above specifics are what is missing from this article, there is still stuff to learn from here. First, MaGuire lists the Old Testament prophets' indictment on men for trading the truth for lies. These prophets charge us with preferring "smooth" and "seductive" talk. It is as if we choose those who speak to us as we would choose dates. We prefer empty promises and flattery. And because of this, we are furthering our own demise.

But, again, MaGuire would do well to talk about why we forsake the truth for the seductive. Certainly we have alluded to that already. We might also add that those who only listen to what is nice have chosen the security that comes with silent obedience to meeting one's moral responsibility to speak out against injustice which the Old Testament prophets, Jesus, and James sought.

Second, MaGuire writes about how individual prophets would address specific issues. He imagines how Jeremiah would challenge our government for cutting budgets that help human need while increasing military budgets. He goes on to describe how Isaiah would also chastise our government for its budget because, again, it gives too much to war and little to nothing to eliminate poverty or promote peace. Then he briefly states how Micah, Hosea, and Jesus would challenge our government on healthcare. He goes on to mention one person who contracted and died from a serious but treatable disease because this person could neither qualify for help nor afford healthcare.

There are important things to read in this article. However, the title is misleading. The article has nothing to do with the isolation of the truth teller but everything to with the message and the audience.

Paul Ryan Does A 360 Degree About-Face On Ayn Rand

Has Paul Ryan pulled a "Mitt Romney" on Ayn Rand? We must ask because Ryan first declared that Rand was his inspiration for entering politics and now he claims to have rejected her basic philosophy.

But many could care less about Ryan's allegiance to Rand's principles asking, "Who's Ayn Rand?" This ironic question could be answered in terms of her history and philosophy. Above all, Ayn Rand is an all-or-nothing thinker who favors individualism over collectivism. This simply means that with any issue whether it be social policies, economic policies, or religion, she always sides with the individual sovereignty over outside help or control. As a result, almost everybody could find areas of agreement with Rand but whether one could be considered a disciple of Rand depends on how comfortable one is with their place on a continuum towards her all-or-nothing thinking. This is perhaps where Paul Ryan has found himself in trouble.

But before we get to Paul Ryan, one must note the source for both Rand's favoring the individual and her black-white thinking. The reason for both could very well come from her own history in Russia as it became a Communist country. What is necessary here is to consider the before and after effect that the Bolshevik Revolution had her life. Her family had to flee their home and her father lose his prosperous business to find safety from the violence of the revolution. In addition, she found the Bolsheviks to be control freaks. The trauma that must have been part of the experience can easily explain the all-or-nothing thinking Rand employs, but it cannot explain the preference for individualism since the latter preceded the revolution. Here we might refer again to her family's place in society as well as the fact that she was a highly gifted person.

Now, who is Paul Ryan and how does he regard Ayn Rand? In 2005, when speaking at an event celebrating Ayn Rand, Ryan gave her high praise as he credited her with inspiring him to enter public life. He also highly encouraged all of this staff to read her works. But a funny thing happened to Ryan on his way to the Vice Presidential nomination, he had to comfort Conservative Christians who take issue with Rand's opposition to religion, abortion, and, last but not least, Ronald Reagan. So Ryan pulled a "Mitt Romney," or a "John Kerry" if you are still living in the year 2008, and claimed that he only had a passing fancy in Rand and was interested in her economic views only. Should we mention to Ryan that Rand's economic views flow from her atheism?

So the question becomes whether Paul Ryan has a different view of Ayn Rand now as he did when he tried to force his interns to read her. To answer this question, we must first discern how much Ryan already disagreed with Rand. Rand was both an extreme individualist, a fiscal conservative, and was antiwar. As an individualist, she was a libertarian who favored abortion rights, and she promoted atheism and saw that as integral to her idea of individualism. Thus, she rejected religion because something other than one's own reason would rule over a person and their own self-interest.

Except for being a fiscal conservative, Paul Ryan has never agreed with Ayn Rand. So for Ryan to suddenly say that he now disagrees with Rand is disingenuous to say the least. Where has Ryan always agreed with Rand? It is in the area of laissez-faire Capitalism. Here, no one should be forced to give to any in need and there should be no government regulation of business practices. To what degree Ryan believes that Capitalism should be laissez-faire and business should be regulation free is difficult to ascertain because no one who is in government has shown themselves to be absolutists there. But that Ryan goes strongly in the direction of the all-or-nothing thinking of Rand is beyond dispute when one considers what he proposes for Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. Since Ryan is in favor of privatizing Social Security and parts of Medicare, he follows Rand's self-interest philosophy where a service is provided only on the basis that someone profits from it.

Ryan's proposal also puts programs like Head Start at risk though the degree of risk is unknown because of the lack of details coming from Ryan and the Republicans. But what is clear is that Ryan views both financial and environmental regulations as chains that weigh down business performance. In addition, Ryan wants to reduce tax rates and simplify the tax code. But what nobody is admitting is that the Bush tax cuts are one of the leading causes to today's budget deficits along with increased military and wartime spending.

Whatever statements elected officials make, none of them can fully implement Rand's philosophies. That is because government is too big to be totally ruled in a wide scale all or nothing fashion. But general directions can be determined. And what is clear is that Ryan's following of Ayn Rand principles have seen no change. Ryan has always selectively followed her.

But more is involved than just partially implementing Rand's philosophies. For example, as Ryan predicts doom for the Social Security fund because of the increasing number of beneficiaries versus the number of contributors, he neglects to mention that our Social Security fund is the largest holder of our nation's debt. So that the biggest threat to the Social Security trust fund is not the beneficiary to contributor ratio, it is government's willingness to steal from this fund to save face. That Ryan objects to the Social Security philosophy of current contributors paying for someone else's benefits is merely a philosophical disagreement that bears no consequence.

In addition, that Ryan wants to reduce or privatize social services goes in the direction of Ayn Rand philosophy. But Ryan's belief in both increasing defense spending and in American Exceptionalism are contrary to Rand's philosophy. Such inconsistency might point to the fact that virtue and self-interest can oppose each other rather than go hand-in-hand as Rand claimed.

That Ryan can point to flaws in Obama's policies implies no merit to Ryan's proposals. For most of the analysis that Ryan provides on Obama and what he promotes rests on an incomplete context for Obama's failures. And the constituents about whom Ryan expresses his deepest concern are businesses. So when Ryan parts with Rand, such as in exorbitant military spending, it benefits certain businesses. And when Ryan at least partially implements Rand's ideas and values, such as reducing regulations and taxes on businesses, again, it helps the business community.

So perhaps all of the talk that ties to or distances Ryan and Rand is merely a slight-of-hand that exists to simply distract the audience while the trick of promoting corporate interests is being performed. And Ryan's motivation for protect business interests seems to come from a personal self-interest.

From a Christian perspective, self-interest at the expense of others is rarely if ever put in a good light. It certainly does not follow the model Christ provided and promoted without a real twisting of the Scriptures. Neither is Rand's all-or-nothing approach to individualism what is taught in the Bible. Besides the many examples where the Biblical writers appealed to authority to determine what believers should do, collectivism is taught throughout both testaments. For throughout the Bible, people are severely judged for withholding help from those in need. That their lack of giving would have violated the kind of personal integrity that Ayn Rand taught was never an issue in those judgments.

From a human perspective, a red flag must always be raised when people speak in absolutes. This is not  meant to deny the existence of absolutes, it simply means that their presence is a strong indicator that we are playing on very thin ice. For one thing, psychologists warn against such thinking. So do most philosophers. But we should also note that many strongly religious people indiscriminately favor this kind of thinking. And we should note that because too many corporations follow an all-or-nothing approach to self-interest when they commit to maximizing profits, our economic system is about to implode rather than grow.

Perhaps this is why Martin Luther King preached a synthesis between Capitalism and Communism as the only viable social and economic alternative available to us. He promoted this because Capitalism's weakness is that it forgets that life always involves others, what the business world referred to as stakeholders, while Communism's weakness forgets that we are individuals. And the question becomes, when a public figure compares Ayn Rand to Martin Luther King as people, why would any sane leader base more of their theories on Rand rather than King. The answer to this question is simple. It is because of their self-interest. And it his own self-interest that determines how Ryan has and continues to selectively follow Ayn Rand.

Martin Luther King's Review Of The Good Samaritan

In his last speech, Martin Luther King spoke in Memphis in support of the striking sanitation workers. Conservatives should note here that King's presence in Memphis was to promote economic justice. Toward the end of his speech, King referenced the parable on the Good Samaritan (read here for parable, read here for King's speech).  This parable tells a story about a man who was  beaten, robbed, and left for dead on a dangerous road. He was then ignored by two religious leaders but was helped by a religiously unclean Samaritan. This parable was told by Jesus to a man intent on proving his own righteousness.

King began his explanation by giving the traditional interpretation of the parable. This understanding says that the Levite and the priest had religious reasons for not stopping to help. These reasons might have included wanting to get to the "church" on time or desiring to keep ceremonially clean.

But then King decided to use his imagination to fill in the blanks. He first noted that the road Jesus used in the parable was a dangerous road and was filled with robbers. So when the Levite and the priest came upon the man, King thought that they had asked themselves the question, "If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?" They wondered if they would be robbed or was the man who was beaten merely trying to trick them so he could rob whoever stopped to help. King summarized the attitude of these two religious leaders by asking, "What would happen to me?"

Then King noted that the Good Samaritan reversed the question that the Levite and priest had asked. The Good Samaritan asked the question, "If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?" King went on to say that the reason why they were in Memphis was not because of what would happen to them; rather, the question that made King go to Memphis was one that asked what would happen to the sanitation workers if he did not join them.

The question King attributes to the Good Samaritan delivers a knockout punch to the solar plexus of Conservative Christianity. Why? It is because this question challenges us to become other-directed while Conservative Christianity, with its focus on the individual, pressures us to stay self-directed. American Conservative Christianity funnels our attention to the individual by putting the emphasis it does on both where we will go after we die and on keeping oneself personally pure. Unfortunately, this stress on the self stops us from caring for many people. Therefore, the question that is most often asked by conservative Christians with regard to helping others is, "What will happen to me if I stop to help another person?" A variation of this question is also asked by conservative Christians. That question is "What will happen to me if I don't stop to help this person?" The subject of the latter question is whether one would be punished by God if one does not stop to do something one does not want to do.

But the demands of God's law, as partially illustrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan, and the needs of our time require that we ask the altruistic question. Both the law and the times require that we place concern for others over self. And in the parable of the Good Samaritan, as in the parable of the sheep and the goats (read sheep and goats parable), the other person is one who is oppressed or neglected. Thus, when we meet someone in need, we should be asking, "What will happen to this person if I do not stop to help them?"

The next question becomes will Conservative Christianity remain on the road paved by the question of "what will happen to me" and its variation or will it turn onto the street that asks, "what will happen to the other person." We should note that care for where one will go after death and one's own personal righteousness does not necessarily free the believer from sin. However, being other-directed can help. The believer who is self-directed regardless of how religious the believer is holding on to an idolatrous self-interest. The believer who is other-directed has an advantage in battling sin.

As Conservative Christianity remains on its current road, it sanctifies self-centeredness. It tells us to become preoccupied with ourselves in a holy way. It teaches us that faith in Christ can help us get what we want in life. It teaches us to be righteously selfish. That means Conservative Christianity tells the sinner that their self-centeredness only needs to be tweaked, not removed. With Conservative Christianity, one can be as self-centered as before as long as what one desires is not taboo. With today's Conservative Christianity, the believer becomes a consumer, the Gospel a commodity, and the exercise of faith in Christ the adding of the Gospel to one's shopping cart.

We should also ask why Conservative Christianity teaches its adherents to remain so preoccupied with themselves when their Savior did just the opposite. One reason has to do with what the believer would have to do if they were other-directed. Certainly they would have to help some as individuals such as by helping with chores, giving money to those who are poor, tutoring, and such. But other activities would require the believer to be an activist and speak out against those with wealth and power. In Biblical language, this is called being a prophet.

Does the Conservative Church want to change course and challenge the status quo by teaching its members to be prophet-activists? After all, the Conservative Church depends on the status quo for both numbers and funds. Calling on believers to challenge the hand that feeds them may cause them to leave since many individual conservative Christians depend on and admire the wealthy and are loyal to power. In addition, calling on believers to be activists on more than just the abortion issue will lead to believers working with and reading unbelievers. This idea frightens the American Conservative Church both on an institutional and individual level. On an institutional level, encouraging believers to read nonbelievers could result in having less control of the flock as its members read non-approved material. At the same time, many individual Christians are afraid of reading non-approved material less they be corrupted by nonChristian world views.

So far, the American Conservative Church has opted to keep faith and the Christian life as a self-directed endeavor. And this is despite the fact that a greater concern for others than for self does not prevents one from believing or from being concerned about personal righteousness. In fact, being other-directed is more consistent with saving faith than is being righteously selfish.

In the meantime, the question that King imagined the Good Samaritan asking challenges those outside of the Conservative Church as well. With all of the factions and issues tearing at our society and world today, it is safe to say that unless we imitate the Good Samaritan as King saw him and tried to do himself, we will implode and lose all that we have. Not only will we lose, but so will all of our loved ones. Such a statement seems incredulous to those who are content. That is because contentment releases a hallucinogen that causes us to see our current state as existing forever. And it is only when that state of contentment is interrupted that are we motivated to see and react to reality. If this is the case, our hope can only come too late.