The Problem With Eulogies

After a friend of mine told me about her experiences from attending a memorial service for her mother, it got me thinking about the problem with such services and the eulogies given in them. For while listening to what was said in the memorial service, my friend kept asking herself: 'Are they talking about my mother'? 

The problem revolves around the need to be comforting with the need to speak the truth to those who have suffered tremendously from the loss of a loved one. The truth, of course, is that we are all sinners who are desperately in need of God's mercy and grace. Eulogies sometimes appear to deny that truth. It's not that we should  publicly empty the deceased person's closet of skeletons during a memorial service. At the same time, eulogies should not be constructed so that the person being described is portrayed as having lived without sin. 

And so we come to two articles that express well-earned appreciation for the life of R.C. Sproul Sr. For those who never listened to nor read him, Sproul gave an intellectual credibility to the Christian faith. He enriched the lives of many people. In many ways, he is the predecessor to Tim Keller whose ministry Redeemer Church in NYC and work with the Gospel Coalition has blessed many. Sproul did much of what Keller is doing now. And his passing is a cause of great grief to many who knew him personally or were familiar with his work.

There are two articles from the Mortification of Spin blog that eulogized Sproul. The one article is entitled Lion In Our Midst: A Eulogy For R.C. Sproul (click here for the article) by Richard Phillips. The other article is called  R.C. Sproul: An Appreciation (click here for the article) by Todd Pruitt. Both men were greatly influenced by Sproul. For Phillips, that influence came from listening to Sproul preach in person and then becoming personal friends with him. In contrast, Pruitt's experiences came from reading his books. Both learned to follow the Reformed Faith's understanding of the Gospel and they admire Sproul's defense of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. My condolences go other to both men and others who knew him or were positively affected by his ministry as well as to his family members.

My experiences with Sproul leaned toward being bipolar. When I first read or listened to him,  I was greatly moved though I cannot remember the specifics at this time. I just appreciated someone who made the necessary distinctions that Sproul made when talking about issues--the making of such distinctions appears to be a lost art today. This ability to make distinctions in his teaching contributed to Sproul giving intellectual credibility to the Gospel.

But I am no longer enamored with Sproul. That isn't because I don't appreciate his abilities and passion, I very much do. But some of the things I've heard  him teach do trouble me. His teaching on some issues seem somewhat legalistic. An example here would be what he has said about tithing and those Christians who don't believe it is necessary. 

Regarding practical theology issues like politics and economics, Sproul was a homer. That is he pretty much supported those political and economic views that were mainstay to Republican American views and he used his understanding of Christianity to justify those views. He seemed unable to step back and look at traditionally conservative views on American politics and economics from the outside. Thus, he somewhat conflated what Christianity teaches with what conservative politics support. The kind of support he gave for the 2003 invasion of Iraq as well as for capitalism indicated a conservative insularity in terms of the reference materials he used to form his opinions on those issues. In addition, when talking about some of the Jesus's teachings on how we should treat others, he left out some of what the Apostles taught and practiced which seem to have not been as rigorous as what Jesus taught.

We should note that it is important that these disagreements and statements showing Sproul's possible mistakes be made at this time. Why? It is not because we want to denigrate Sproul's contributions to the Christian faith or to add to the sorrow of those grieving his loss. But it is to show that we Christians can make mistakes and errors in our understanding of the Bible and still be Christians and be saved. And that is where Sproul stands today. He contributed greatly to the Christian faith and the Church in America. He probably contributed greatly to the faith of many from other nations. At the same time, he was wrong on some issues both in his conclusions and in how he came to those conclusions. And being wrong on the issues on which he was wrong never took away from his standing before God.

R.C. Sproul will rightfully be missed very much by many for his contributions to their lives and to the Christian faith in general. And he didn't have to be perfect to deserve to be sorely missed.



 
 

Are We Christians Trying Too Hard To Fit A Stereotype? Part V

For the near future, some of the articles posted on Fridays will consist of reviews of Christian writings from 2 perspectives. The first perspective will be that of the view of the role of the Church in America as described by the report, The Crisis Of Democracy. This report is a view of the role of the Church from a liberal viewpoint. This perspective is an observation of the past which was interrupted during the protest years of the 1960s. That time was described by the report as having an 'excess of democracy.' And that view says the following (click here for the source):

In the past, those institutions which have played the major role in the indoctrination of the young in their rights and obligations as members of society have been the family, the church, the school, and the army. The effectiveness of all these institutions as a means of socialization has declined severely. The stress has been increasingly on individuals and their rights, interests, and needs, and not on the community and its rights, interests, and needs.

 The second perspective is an observation, not an ideological declaration, about the Church made from the Left in Russia prior to its October, 1917 Revolution--we should note that Russia also underwent a February, 1917 Revolution. This perspective was written by Vlad (a.k.a., Vladimir Lenin) and it went like this (click here for the source):

Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. 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 reason for reviewing Christian writings from these two perspectives is to determine whether today's writings show that the Church has changed since the times in which those observations were made. And for the record, I just want to say that I am not a fan of Lenin regardless of how I refer to him.

This week, the focus is on R.C. Sproul (click here for a bio) and his blogpost on the value of human life and abortion (click here for the article). This blogpost will also cite some other articles from the Ligonier list of articles with some by Sproul while one or two are from his son. The reason for this will become apparent.

In talking about abortion, Sproul brings up two biblical passages. One talks about lust and adultery (Matthew 5:27-28) and the other talks about anger and murder (Matthew 5:21-22). He does not bring up both of the these passages talk about abortion primarily; rather, he does so to talk about how we should read the laws given in the Bible. For with passages, the prohibition cited applies more than to just the literal acts. The prohibition against adultery, for example, applies to more than just refraining from the physical act of adultery, it applies both desire and allowing the conditions that would lead to the potential of breaking God's law. The same applies to anger and murder.

Thus, the commands of God have negative implications far beyond what meets the naked eye when reading the commandments. Likewise, Sproul notes that there are positive implications to the commandments on adultery and murder that would foster conditions the preserve both purity and life. He places all of this in the context of the sanctity of human life which he discusses when he quotes from Genesis 1:26-27 as well as other passages.

With regard to abortion, he tells us that we are prohibited from killing life and from participating in the potential killing of life. Thus, we should allow for abortion because it is the taking of actual or potential living person. That refraining from participating in the actual killing or the potential taking of life comes from those negative and positive implications from reading God's law on murder.

So far, everything that Sproul has said is sound and valuable in terms of how we should read and apply the Scriptures. It is well worth reading. So why does it sound like there is going to be the mention of a problem or two? It is because how Sproul applies the Scriptures that prohibit murder to the case of abortion is not also immediately applied to the case of war and economics as far as can be detected in other articles. For those on war, please access the following links: War And The Christians, When War, What's The Most Important Economic Lesson Americans Need To Learn, and Tough Economic Times.

Before going on, some disclaimers must be made. The list of articles cited is very brief and so we can't conclude that Sproul never associates the subject of murder or the potential killing of others with war and economics. So we must qualify what our complaint says to saying that the prohibition against murder and the potential for participating in murder was not as foremost in the minds of those who wrote those articles as we would want. In addition, the articles on economics was not written by R.C. Sproul, they were written by his son and his son writes from a very conservative political and economic viewpoint. But the articles by his son is still coming from R.C. Sproul's Ligonier Ministry's website.

So when we read these other articles, what we find is no association of the prohibition against murder or the potential of killing with war or with economics. Now some would question why do we need to associate the command against murder to economics? It is simply because exploitive economic systems provide for the potential of hurting or even killing others in multiple ways.

Now what does all of this have to do with what Vlad and The Crisis Of Democracy have said about the co-opting of the Church by those who maintain the status quo? With regard to abortion, we should note that it has become a moot issue because we are in the process of wrecking the world by waging war and destroying the environment. How can we talk to nonconservatives about the sanctity of human life for the unborn when we don't talk about the sanctity of human life when discussing war and the environment? 

In addition, the abortion issue is an individual, personal decision--this statement does not justify elective abortions. And even though Sproul goes on to associate the prohibition against murder as a reason to protect the vulnerable as well as the unborn, the decisions to do so are made by Christians as individuals, not the Church as an institution. And there is no mention of protesting the conditions forced on the vulnerable by the Church as an institution. Thus, when talking about war and economics, there was no mention of the Church as an institution preaching repentance to those who call for war and/or maintain exploitive economic systems. 

Thus, what Vlad observed in his day carries over to today regarding the Church not challenging those with wealth and power. So when those same people provide assistance for the victims of the pursuits they support, they are working what Vlad rightfully called a 'cheap' grace angle. As for what was said in The Crisis Of Democracy, the Church as an institution still serves as an institution of indoctrination in silent complicity. Yes, it might encourage some of its adherents to resist the call to some wars in accordance with what those individuals believe; but the Church as an institution will never speak out against the authority figures of either the public or private sectors.

And what was just said about war goes more than double for the economy. For as we see in Sproul's son's views, the government can only inhibit the business sector with its actions. Thus, according to Sproul's son, the government cannot represent the people in prohibiting those with wealth and other business owners from legally exploiting others or benefiting from an exploitive system. And here again, we want to note the very conservative politica/economic beliefs of Sproul's son.

The close ties between political/economc conservatism and theological conservatism in this nation has only ensured that at least much of the Conservative Church in America will follow the examples provided by the predominant branches of the Church that existed in the pre revolutionary times of French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions. During those times, the predominant branch of the Church sided with wealth and thus it ended up siding with tyranny. When the revolutions came, quite a bit of dishonor was brought to the Gospel by those allegiances. The same could be said of the predominant churches prior to coups that existed in Guatemala (1954) and Chile (1973). The predominant churches then sided with wealth so that when the respective coups came, those churches ended up siding with tyranny. This is what Vlad objected to while fitting in to the system of the wealthy which is what The Crisis Of Democracy said was the purpose of the Church.

The Reason For The Season

The recent debate that some churches have waged within themselves about whether to have Sunday services on Christmas day shows how far we have drifted from the true meaning of Christmas. While much of the Western World redefines Christmas so as to make it as much an inclusive celebration as possible, the true meaning of Christmas is being missed. R.C. Sproul (click here for a bio) gave a talk about what Christmas is about. His talk and a transcript can be found here.

His opening line says a lot about what Christmas is about. Sproul says:

What we celebrate at Christmas is not so much the birth of a baby, as important as that is, but what’s so significant about the birth of that particular baby is that in this birth we have the incarnation of God Himself.

In celebrating Christmas, we are not to celebrate family, peace and good will to all, or some idealism that unites as many people as possible. It isn't as if those things should be dismissed. It is that Christmas has a specific meaning and that meaning revolves around the birth a one particular baby who was God with us. And that was a feat that the birth of no other child could accomplish. In terms of defining Christmas based on who Jesus is, Sproul does a wonderful job and what he said is well worth listening to or reading.

But I would add one more point to what Sproul said in his talk. Christmas is about the birth of one particular baby within a specific context. That context was God's love reaching out to a fallen world. Now describing the world as 'fallen' does not do emotional justice to the state of the world both then and now. And because it does not do justice to the state of the world, it also does not do justice to our own individual states. God came to us in person starting with the birth of Jesus because of His love for us and how sinful we are. The problem of our fallen sinful state could in no way be remedied by some moral nerd who could teach us how to live better lives--though we should always appreciate those moral nerds who do. Rather, our sinful state required that God Himself must repair the damage that sin has done and He came to us up close and in person to do just that. 

The inclusivity of how we celebrate Christmas today diverts our attention from the birth of the one particular baby named Jesus.  Also, the conjunction of that inclusivity along with our consumeristic approach to celebrating Christmas distracts or even blinds us from the sinful state that Jesus came to rescue us. Because of the inclusivity of and our consumeristic approach to celebrating Christmas, Christmas time has become merely another escapism that is joined by so many other forms of escape. And what we are trying to escape from is seeing Christ for who he is and ourselves for who we are. For seeing Christ for who he is can be frightening and seeing ourselves for the sinners we are can be too painful. In addition, seeing ourselves for the sinners we are robs us of the relief we get from focusing on the sins of others.

So please either read or listen to the talk Sproul gives about the meaning Christmas. I deliberately did not comment too much on what he said so that people reading this would listen to or read Sproul's own words. 

R.C.Sproul Vs Martin Luther King On Karl Marx

We've all heard the name of Karl Marx, but do we really know what his beliefs were? If we equate the Soviet Union and its kind of government and economy with Marx, we will claim to have known him, but our claims will be delusional.

To know Marx, one must read him, and that can be a challenge considering one's knowledge of history and the issues. But he is worth reading just to know who he really is.

Two people who have read some of his works and have commented on them are R.C. Sproul Sr. and Martin Luther King Jr. The bulk of Sproul's available comment's can be found in his book, The Consequence Of Ideas (click here). King's review of Marx can be found at this link starting with page 92.  

The difference in the reviews stems from their views of Capitalism. Sproul shows that he is a product of Capitalist ideology. It is not that he doesn't criticize Capitalism; but it is that the criticisms he expresses, at least in his review of Marx, are concerning aberrations of Capitalism, not its principles. King, on the other hand, is able to look at Marx from both a nonCapitalist position as well as Capitalist one. Thus King has a broader perspective of Marx and Communism while most of Sproul's concerns are, for the most part, parochial.

Sproul first gives background information on Marx including pertinent information on perhaps the beginning of Marx's rejection of religion. Then Sproul talks about some of Marx's views on labor and the Industrial Revolution. From there Sproul describes Marx's views on man's alienation. Interspersed with these remarks are Sproul's defense of or comparing Marx's views with Capitalism.

According to Sproul, Marx saw the Industrial Revolution as putting our humanity at risk. However, Sproul says little about Marx's view of the marketplace which, under Capitalism, was profound in how it changed man's relation with others, and pervasive in that the markets went global and those countries that did not welcome the markets put themselves risk of being left behind.  In addition, Sproul didn't mention how Marx saw the Bourgeoisie's use of the markets and production as making society and our social relationships volatile because they were constantly changing.

In addition, Spoul left out the details as to how the worker and his labor became a commodity to the owner of capital or business owner. It is because as the worker is paid by the unit, his labor becomes like all commodities that are paid for by the unit. This makes the worker disposable, as well as his community which is supported by what he earns, because if a business owner can find cheaper labor, the current worker can be let go just as a business owner might buy a certain commodity from another vendor if that vendor was selling the commodity, like sugar, at a cheaper price.

As Sproul describes how Marx sees man as being separated from the "fruit of his labor" because of the lack of ownership, Sproul goes into a defense of Capitalism. He talks about how even executives are not owners unless they possess shares of stock in the company and that even low-wage earners can also be owners by owning stock. At this point, we have to ask if what Marx emphasized about the need for worker control has totally escaped Sproul's attention. For owning stock per se doesn't solve the problem Marx saw because it doesn't give workers control. That control is for those with wealth who can afford to own a large percentage of shares. So owning a few shares of stock does not change the status of the worker. In addition, as Chomsky has pointed out, a worker who owns stock in the company in his own company must root against his own best interests. This is because one of the ways a worker can gain a bigger return on the stock he owns is if the company cuts his wages so that it makes a bigger profit.

Sproul extols on how, in Capitalism, one's wealth works for the owner just as the land works for the farmer. And though here, he is talking about owning stock, he also then portrays the actual owner of a business as someone who deserves what rewards he/she can take because of the risk he/she is taking. That is because a high percentage of businesses fail after so many years. When this happens, the owner can lose everything. As true as that is, Sproul says nothing about how workers risk their future by devoting themselves to companies that could fail.

Sproul also remarks on Marx describing how man is separated from himself because his labor is "forced." For if man doesn't work for a business, he can no longer exist. Sproul goes on to say that, according to Marx, man is also alienated because he loses his creative freedom. 

Finally, Sproul describes Marx's final alienation as a separation from others because his labor if for and is owned by others. 

In commenting  about how Capitalism divides people into the owners and the workers, Sproul is quick to comment on how Marx failed to see the emergence of the Middle Class. This is an odd comment simply because 1) Marx mentions the Middle Class multiple times in his writings, and 2) America's past shows that part of its Middle Class came about through harsh and sometimes violent labor struggles where the police often sided with business owners. Labor struggles are not a part of Capitalism but are praised by Marx. In addition, Marx saw different levels of classes rather than just the rich and the poor.

Sproul goes on to describe what he saw as Marx's failed attempt to provide an alternative for how value is determined in a Capitalist system. Then Sproul almost chides Marx for predicting that workers would suffer losses in a Capitalist system. Sproul attributes this to believing a "myth" that says that one can only get rich at the expense of others. Considering that we live in a world of finite resources with a marketplace that revolves around competition, it is difficult to not see any truth in the "myth."

Now we should note that Sproul's book came out in 2000. Since then, we had an economic collapse where millions of people lost both jobs and their homes and most of the recovery has been enjoyed by the rich. And it seems that Sproul had not noticed that the wages for the bottom 90% of the population have stagnated since 1973. In addition, Sproul seems unaware of the laborers who are invisible stakeholders in the Capitalist endeavor. These are those who work in foreign sweatshops for meager pay and in horrid conditions because of the lack of government regulations or enforcement. 

What Sproul also seems unaware of is how American intervention has led to proxy rulers who have given America cheap access to the raw resources of other countries. Though Sproul correctly gives Marx points for foreseeing the practice of Crony Capitalism, he seems to be blind to the extent that Crony Capitalism exists and that the profit motive might make any other form of Capitalism impossible. At this point, we might ask Sproul, if Crony Capitalism is the real source of our prosperity and greater wealth, is such Capitalism then justified because of its results?

It isn't until the very end where Sproul rightly states that some of the basic tenets of Marxism are contrary to the Bible. He then adds that Marx's goal was the abolishment of private property and yet Sproul seems unaware of why or what that meant. Marx's contention was that private property, whether personal or business, was often used to control others and if one breaks that control, one has, in an ideal sense, abolished private property. Marx gives some states in America as examples of where private property was so abolished in his essay, On The Jewish Question (click here).

So, though Sproul can give a competent and useful summary of some of what Marx said, his analysis is limited because of his inability to step outside of the system in which he resides and benefits from.

Now compare the analysis above with that of Martin Luther King Jr.'s. King immediately condemns Marx's materialistic reductionism as a rejection of God, his ends justifies the means relativism because the "ends are preexistent in the means,"  and Communism's totalitarianism. Though we should note that not all who are on the Left here see that totalitarianism as representing Marx and Socialism. King goes on to condemn Marxism because of its blindness to how life is "individual and personal." That goes back to the existence of God and man being made in the image of God. 

However, King was also able to see some of the problems Marx saw in Capitalism--this is in contrast to Sproul who could only see abuses in Capitalism. King saw that just as Marxism had filtered out the individual to focus on the collective, Capitalism did the same to collective and the social in order to focus on the individual. In contrast to that King saw the need for a synthesis that included both the collective and the individual which is what he might call a mixing of the best of both worlds.

In addition, King saw Capitalism as being as materialistic as Communism--what could one expect when Capitalism's claim to fame is in the amount of prosperity it has brought to the world. King saw the materialism in Capitalism as being as dangerous as that which is in Marxism.

Finally, King also understood the appeal of Marxism and Communism. For all of his heresies, according to King, Marx was concerned about the sufferings of the "underprivileged." That isn't the concern of Capitalism. Apologists for Capitalism see it lifting everybody up as a side effect. But that isn't what has happened everywhere in the past or is taking place today. 

If we doubt Marx when he associated wars with Capitalism, all we need to do is to read former Marine Corps General Smedley Butler as he wrote about American interventions before WWII (click here and there) and historian William Blum as he documents the 50+ post WWII interventions (click here). Then if we look at wages, we see how globalization has lowered them for both low-skilled as well as technical jobs by both increasing the labor supply and by expanding the labor market to where there are fewer, if any, protective regulations for workers. We can also examine how Capitalism has ravaged the environment especially in its hunt for energy. Visits to some fracking sites as well as surveying the areas where mountaintop removal is used to mine for coal can sometimes give us living pictures of miniature apocalypses.

Both King and Marx saw Capitalism as reducing relationships to one of "self-interest" and the "profit motive." For King, this makes us thing-oriented rather than person-oriented. But the moral of the story here is about perspective. When one cannot look at one's own system from the outside and adequately criticize it, one's view of the world suffers from a kind of tunnel vision. So much of the world becomes obscure to us because of our focus. And this is the key difference between King's and Sproul's reviews Marx. 

King can both criticize and commend Marx from a nonCapitalist viewpoint. Sproul's attachment to Capitalism prevents him from seeing many of Marx's detriments and contributions outside of how it relates to Capitalism. The result is that King can see the strengths and weaknesses of both Capitalism and Communism. In contrast to King, Sproul is somewhat like the Pharisee in Jesus' parable of the two men praying. Sproul can both thank God that he is not a Marxist and praise God for all of Capitalism's benefits. But remember that it wasn't the Pharisee who went home justified.

Questioning R.C. Sproul's Views On War

R.C. Sproul is a deservedly well esteemed teacher of theology and the Bible. He comes from the Reformed Tradition that is based on the theological works of St Augustine, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, and, his mentor, John Gerstner. He has built a teaching ministry called Ligonier Ministries. BTW, he is not to be confused with his son, R.C. Sproul Jr.

I must start with a disclaimer here, I have not had opportunity to review all of Sproul's statements on war. So this post will be based on partial information. I would appreciate any extra information either through the comments or email. Though the lack of information  might prevent us from reviewing his stance on war, we do have enough material to ask questions. The links we will be using are the video link that starts the series called When Worlds Collide (War Of Ideas) and a very short article called When To War. The contents of the article will be covered first.

The plusses of what Sproul said include the following:

• An acknowledgment that there were Bible-believing Christians on both sides of the Vietnam and Iraqi Wars, these wars were referred to in article mentioned
• That all war is a result of evil
• A debunking of the statement, "my country, right or wrong"
• The statement that war should be resorted to only after all other means to resolve the conflict have been tried
• That there must be an effort to keep non-combatants from being hurt or killed
• Referred to Just War theory and the right to self-defense

But here are some troublesome questions. Weren't Christians on the wrong side of social issues in the past? Weren't some Christians in favor of slavery in America as well as the discrimination and segregation that followed? Did not those Christians who were on the wrong side of issues need to be challenged?

This first set of questions points to the fact that Sproul failed to take names and preach repentance when he could or should have. To refrain from doing so could be an effort to talk about war while not creating a division by offending one side or the other. However, victims of the Vietnam and Iraq Wars could not help but be offended as bombs and bullets killed them or their family members and destroyed their homes and means of making a living.

We might also ask if Sproul also consulted the U.N. Charter, which talks about war and when a country can use force including preemptive attacks, as well as the Nuremberg Principles, which were the standards used to condemn the Nazis. Just War is but one reference. The U.N. Charter, which is legally binding on the U.S. because it is a ratified treaty, clearly spells out when a preemptive action can take place. The Charter also says that such action does not negate the role of the Security Council in reviewing the events so that all who use force are accountable.

The Nuremberg Principles rejected the apologetic the Nazis gave for their actions in Eastern Europe, which was a "preemptive" action to counteract an inevitable attack by Russia. This, as Chomsky has said, is different from preemptive actions in general because no attack had commenced or was imminent. Chomsky refers to such actions as anticipatory self-defense rather than being preemptive. This is important because when one examines our government's  reasons for invading Iraq, the situation and the reasons given would classify our invasion as being an example of anticipatory self-defense rather than a preemptive attack that was in the face of an ongoing or imminent attack.

So what is the point here? The point is that we can very legitimately question our invasion of Iraq as having violated international law as stipulated by past accepted documents and legal procedures, So we must ask Sproul why he wasn't willing to make an assessment on the validity of our War against Iraq? Was it because he didn't want to alienate dissident voices in the Church by supporting it, or was it because he didn't want to challenge the status quo representation in the Church by condemning it? The importance of these questions stems from the persistent charge by Leftists against the Church, that the Church is just another institution of indoctrination that supports wealth and power. The Church confirms these charges when it is silent on issues like the Iraq War.

Sproul would not be the first Reformed minister who refrained from criticizing the status quo and its use of power. My experience in listening to Reformed ministers and those who follow them is that we should not challenge institutions to repent. Rather, transformation of these institutions should be through the training of Christians who will change these institutions from the inside. And despite the fact that Jesus, his apostles, and the Old Testament prophets directly challenged the institutions of their day, some of today's Reformed preachers claim that the biblical way to change institutions is solely by shepherding the individuals who will eventually work in these institutions.


Moving on, we must address something Sproul said in the video referenced above. Towards the end of his talk, he said that the 9-11 attacks were the end of moral relativism. He makes this claim because Americans and people around the world defined, and deservedly so, the attacks on America as pure evil. But the question becomes what does that have to do with moral relativism? Are Sproul's definitions of moral relativism and moral absolutes American-centric ones?

The end of moral relativism would be better indicated if Americans called both 9-11 attacks evil. For in one of those attacks, a leftist leaning, but democratically elected, leader was militarily replaced by a brutal and ruthless dictator. America's role in that attack was one of participant rather than victim. Here, we are referring to the overthrow of the Allende government and how America helped replace it with the brutal dictatorship of Pinochet. The year was 1973.

Part of moral relativism says that the morality of an action depends on who did what to whom. That is, the moral status of an action depends on who is the victim and who is the aggressor. Thus, the one million person protest in Tehran against the 9-11 attacks was an interruption, rather than the end of, in moral relativism. We say interruption here because its end would imply that it is no longer practiced. But the practice of moral relativism continued here as many Americans defended the our invasion of Iraq by comparing what we did with what Saddam Hussein did..

Calling an act of terrorism against one's own group evil does not spell doom for moral relativism. It simply shows that moral relativism was possibly interrupted for a day.And this returns us to our concerns at the beginning. The selective criticism of evil acts and the careful choosing of criteria for defining just wars as well as withholding of criticism is for what purpose?