Can We Change With The Now Without Severing Ourselves From The Past?

Rev. Christopher Gordon (click here for a bio) has recently written a sincere, lamenting appeal to those Reformed denominations in North America to not go the way that many churches from his own denomination have gone. In order to correct past errors and wanting to fit in the evangelical scene as well as being relevant to the world, many churches in his denomination, which is the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), have left their reformed roots in order to be inclusive and sensitive to the social justice issues that exist in the world while forgetting what the Bible teaches about personal morality and sins. The CRC began by being Reformed in its theology and exclusively Dutch in the ethnicity of its members. But with trying to shed the ethnic and other ways of being exclusive which was part being members of their denomination, they seem to have, in general, also jettisoned its Reformed theology from many of their churches.  And thus, as a result, many churches in the CRC have passed by being evangelical to being more like the mainline denominations without passing the proverbial go and without collecting $200. Rev. Gordon wrote about the current plight of many churches in his denomination in the CRC in an article posted by Reformation 21 (click here for the article).

According to Rev. Gordon, the following signs are the result of the shedding of its theological exclusivity in order to become more relevant:

1. The Abandonment of the Authority of Scripture
2. The Abandonment of Reformed Principle of Worship
3. The Abandonment of the Sabbath and the Second Worship Service
4. The Abandonment of Gospel-Centered Expository Preaching
5. The Abandonment of God Assigned Roles in the Church (Women's Ordination)
6. The Abandonment of Moral Standards for Her Members    

Before going on with reporting on Rev. Gordon's concern, we should examine the above signs. It is true that there has been an abandonment of the authority of Scripture in many churches. It is rather easy to see that abandonment in liberal churches that claim to find fault with and errors in the Scriptures. 

But there is also a weakening in the authority of Scripture in the conservative Reformed churches as well. That weakening, however, is expressed in a more subtle form. For when we look at the abandonment of the Reformed Principle of Worship, we find that that principle is sometimes based more on the confessions of the Reformed churches than on the Scriptures. And here we should note that because these confessions are aids to interpreting the Scriptures, these confessions have the same place in Reformed churches that the traditions of the Pharisees had for those Jewish religious leaders (click here for Jesus's challenging of those traditions). Those traditions were also interpretations of the Scriptures. So when Jesus warned the Pharisees about replacing God's Word with the traditions of men, He was speaking to all groups throughout time which put their own traditions on too high a pedestal. To not see our confessions as being our own version of the traditions of the Pharisees is perhaps due to our reluctance to admit that our confessions have errors just as the traditions of the Pharisees had errors.

And nothing provides a better example of the Reformed confessions acting as the traditions of the Pharisees like the emphasis on the Christian Sabbath. For many of the Reformed confessions command us Christians to observe the New Testament Sabbath in a very similar way in which the Old Testament Sabbath was observed. However, this contradicts what Paul wrote in Romans 14 (click here) and Colossians 2 (click here). When I brought up these Scriptures to a Reformed theologian, his response was to read the theology of a certain person. He just contributed to making the point I am making.

According to Rev. Gordon, the beginning of the end for many churches in his denomination seems to have occurred when the worship in his denomination's churches began to imitate the kind of worship in evangelical churches. And though I have respect for Rev. Gordon's concerns and his appreciation for the Gospel and the carrying out of the Great commission, I have to disagree with him on that point. The beginning of the end for many CRC churches was rooted in its own beginning. Remember that the CRC churches were very ethnically, culturally, and theologically exclusive.  It was a denomination where the members of its churches took care of its own and initially saw social justice issues as distractions, if not compromises, to the Gospel. Social Justice was totally seen as a liberal concern, not a Reformed one. That is where the descent to the current state of many CRC churches began.

How is it that the CRC's beginning allegiances led to becoming the opposite of what it began as? From Rev. Gordon's description of how the CRC has become tolerant of what it once opposed and intolerant of what it had embraceh, what both its beginnings and current state have in common is an all-or-nothing approach to its addressing of issues. So as the CRC was once solidly Reformed and totally opposed to any comprising of its traditions with evangelicalism and the world, it has now wholly accommodated to evangelicalism and the world and thus has rejected its Reformed roots in doing so.

The inability of many in the Reformed denominations to recognize that they could learn from liberal theologians without having to become theologically liberal compelled many people to choose between being either theologically reformed or theologically liberal. Because of how past Reformed theologians treated the social concerns of liberal theology, many in the CRC churches felt forced to choose one side or the other. And so the only catalyst that was needed to start churches to change from being totally Reformed to being more mainline was for people to experience disillusionment with how the CRC and its Reformed tradition addressed the problems its members saw in the world. If the CRC and its Reformed tradition did not provide an adequate solution to those problems, many felt that the CRC and the Reformed traditions had failed them and thus had to be left.

So the above states the problem. So now for a proposal that allows Christians to be both more relevant and remain faithful to what the Scriptures teach and what is preached in the Reformed traditions. If you have ever talked to a Reformed theologian, you will find that models of thought are extremely important in how we look at the world. Sometimes these models of thought take precedence over the Scriptures and that is merely a repeating of our using our traditions to replace the Scriptures. So hopefully, I can present a model of thought that would prevent other Reformed churches from at least partially following the path that Rev. Gordon is warning us about without violating the Scriptures. And the first thing to note about that model is that it is not complete, it can be added to or modified.

If we want to speak in the present without severing all ties with the past, we have to acknowledge the following: 1) that our Reformed confessions have errors and omissions in them; and 2) that we can learn from the insights of liberal theologians.

Next, we need to acknowledge that we live as exiles in the world. However, our current plight has both similarities and differences with what the Israelites who were exiled during the Babylonian Captivity. The Jews were were living in exile then as well, but they were not looking to expand their community by converting the citizens of their captives. The Great Commission commands us to expand our community by preaching the Gospel. And we should note that we need to keep from the Reformed confessions whatever is Scriptural and be willing to toss out the rest.

After that, we need to realize that we have two tasks to accomplish as we represent Christ while living in the world as exiles. The first task is to carry out the Great Commission. That carrying out the Great Commission means that we have to preach repentance from sin and to have faith in Christ to be saved from the penalty of our sins. At the same time, we need to learn how to share society with all sorts of unbelievers as equals. That means that we need to collaborate with all sorts of unbelievers in order to determine how we can have a relatively just society where Christians live with all sorts of unbelievers as equals. The moment we strive to gain a place of supremacy over unbelievers in society regardless of the reason, we give unbelievers an unnecessary reason to want to reject even hearing about the Gospel.

When preaching the repentance from sin while carrying out the Great Commission, we can neither afford to preach solely about personal sins nor solely about corporate sins. For to neglect preaching about either kind of sin hurts our opportunities to carry out the Great Commission. When we excuse the personal sins of our own members, we act as hypocrites. When we fail to confront corporate sins, we not only fail to comfort the victims of corporate sins, we fail to preach repentance to each person who plays their own part in the committing of those corporate sins. In other words, working for Social Justice means more than giving comfort to the afflicted, it also includes challenging the perpetrators of social injustice to repent. This is how working for Social Justice can play a role in carrying out the Great Commission. Not that all challenges to perpetrators of social injustice will call on people to also believe in Christ, but it can include that. But regardless, to not work for Social Justice is a way to choose not to be a neighbor to the people we come across who are victims of social injustice. Such is being disobedient to God and can tarnish the reputation of the Gospel. For once we call ourselves Christians, everything we do and don't do becomes associated with the Gospel in the eyes of the unbeliever.

Finally, when carrying out the Great Commission, that is when preaching repentance both from personal sins and corporate sins, we must do so as the publican  prayed in the parable of the two men praying (click here for the parable about the publican and the Pharisee). That is we preach repentance both to those who are committing personal sins and those participating in corporate sins as fellow sinners who have visited injustice on some whom we have come across. For when we carry out this Great Commission as publicans, we carry it out recognizing the members of our audience as fellow sinners and ourselves as needing forgiveness of our sins.

The above model of thought, I believe, could contribute to all Christians, not just Reformed ones, to always be relevant in the world without severing our ties with the past.

 

Do Conservative Attacks On The Left Mirror Trump's Attacks

A number of articles were written about the revelation that Mike Pence follows the Billy Graham Rule. Part of that rule states that men should refrain from eating private meals with a woman who is not one's wife.

One of the articles most recently written on Mike Pence and the Rule is by Richard D. Phillips (click here for bio). Now the purpose of reviewing this article is not to give an assessment of either the Billy Graham Rule, which I religiously do not follow, or of Mike Pence. Rather, this blogpost is written to focus on Phillips's reaction to criticisms of either Pence or the Rule (click here for the article).

Now just as disclosure about myself, I tend to have as many female as male friends. I figured that is because I grew with 3 sisters. I've hung out with female friends and I have only done that after checking with the wife first. She has veto power over all my activities. I should also note that I have male friends too. Now all of that doesn't mean that I automatically criticize the Rule or someone's adherence to it. I think that following some version of the Rule, and not necessarily refraining from eating meals, can be wise especially for ministers especially in counseling sessions. Where I would take issue here is where Christians would automatically judge men, Christian or not, for not following the Rule.

But again, neither the Rule nor Pence is the issue here. What is the issue is how Phillips handles criticisms of the Rule. How does he do that? He divides the criticism into that which comes from the secular media and the Left, and there is no more ambiguous or vague term in American English that the term 'the Left,' and that which comes from religiously conservative Christians. Phillips says that the Left has forgotten the pain caused by adultery. In addition, he states that the Left doesn't understand the temptations that close working relationships with members of the opposite sex can bring. Finally he claimed that the rule was being mocked by the Left.

However, Phillips did not make the same charges against conservative critics of the Rule. Why is that? We should note here that Phillips didn't acknowledge legitimate concerns about the Rule from the Left some of which were shared by some conservatives.
 
An example of valid concerns about the Rule coming from the Left was in a Washington Post article (click here for the article), Laura Turner praised the reason for the rule. At the same time, we should note some of the concerns she listed about the Rule. In that article, she wrote:

In this case, the Billy Graham Rule risks reducing women to sexual temptations, objects, things to be avoided. It perpetuates an old boys’ club mentality, excluding women from important work and career conversations simply by virtue of their sex.

Now do her comments about the Billy Graham rule verify what Phillips said about the Left's apathy for adultery or disdain for the Left's ignorance of temptation or its mocking of the rule? See, some on the Left might have done that, but not all and Turner's article is proof of that.

But Turner isn't the only writer to note problems with the rule. Writing for The Atlantic, Olga Khazan notes research that shows that when those in politics or business follow the Rule, career advancements for women suffer significantly (click here for article). She goes on to write that women's voices are not adequately represented in Trump's Cabinet. And, btw, there is no mocking of the Rule in her article. And Robin Abcarian echos some of the same concerns in her Los Angeles Times article on Pence and the Rule (click here for the article). She also cites the views of some that such a rule when applied in business or political settings amounts to sexism. And there is no mocking of the rule in her article either.
 
Now when Phillips cites criticisms from fellow conservative believers, he gives a different list of concerns. And he emphasizes the differences in the criticisms made by the two groups. But with minimal research, Phillips's complaints  about the mocking of the Rule by the secular media has been proven to be a gross overgeneralization and thus he has not fairly represented all who are on the Left and/or are writing for the secular media.

So now this is the problem: Phillips is imitating Trump when the latter attacks criticisms from the Left. This is not to say that Phillips did not see or hear the kinds of criticisms he listed from nonconservatives.  It is to say that valid concerns, as well as respect for the intention of the Rule, have been expressed by the secular media and Phillips chose to either neglect to do proper research on the Left's reaction to Pence and the Rule or neglect to mention valid concerns and even admiration for the Rule by the secular media and the Left. 

Oops, We Caricaturized Again

Rick Phillips (click here for his bio) just wrote a blogpost for the Reformation 21 website called Socialism is Evil (click here for the article). It is difficult where to start on such an article. For does the article help reinforce the stereotyped notion that Conservative Christianity serves to indoctrinate people in order to maintain the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power? Despite his criticisms of how Capitalism has been implemented here, yes. Does his article show that his exposure to Socialism comes not from reading Socialists, but from reading conservative views of Socialism? It certainly seems so. Does his view of Socialism rely more on its caricatures rather than on reading original sources on the multiple types of Socialism? Again, it certainly seems so.

So when Phillips lists the evils of Socialism, he basically is describing a centralized government that owns all property in order to give away this property to others. One should note here that he does distinguish his view of Socialism from some voluntary forms of Communism. But here is where he is wrong. The definition of Libertarian Socialism (click here for reference) combines a defense of individual freedoms with worker-owned and run workplaces.  In addition, Libertarian Socialists to varying degrees oppose big governments.

Or let's go to Socialists who do believe in what some call 'state socialiam' where there is more centralized government power than what Libertarian Socialists call for. For Phillips said the following about Socialism:

Under socialism, however, a small number of government masters has control over almost all of the resources of the entire society.

Such a description certainly fits  what happened in the Old Soviet Union as started by Lenin. But then we should read Rosa Luxemburg's criticism of Lenin which also applies to his successors (click here for the source):

Lenin and Trotsky, on the other hand, decide in favor of dictatorship in contradistinction to democracy, and thereby, in favor of the dictatorship of a handful of persons, that is, in favor of dictatorship on the bourgeois model.

See, if we follow Luxemburg's view of Socialism and the Bourgeoisie, we find that what we have used to stereotype Socialism, the old U.S.S.R., is not a model of Socialism, but of Capitalism. That is because under Lenin's leadership, the same kind of management employed by the Bourgeoisie in controlling their private property was now being employed in the government. What does Luxemburg view Socialism to be (same source as the last quote):

It should and must at once undertake socialist measures in the most energetic, unyielding and unhesitant fashion, in other words, exercise a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique – dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy. 

Here, there are two points that Luxembourg emphasizes about Socialism: the identity of those in control of the government and how they make decisions. Socialism, according to Luxembourg, occurs when the working class uses democracy to run the government. 

With all of that in mind, what is Phillips' view of Socialism? It is Bernie Sanders' description of Socialism that he has in mind. According to Phillips' article, Sanders' description of Socialism qualifies as evil because:

1. Because socialism is a system based on stealing
2. Because socialism is an anti-work system
3. Because socialism concentrates the power to do evil

But Phillips' claims about Sanders' Socialism has some problems to account for. The first problem is that much of what Sanders is calling 'Socialism' is based on FDR's New Deal (click here) as well as what Martin Luther King proposed. In addition, the same can be said about what Sanders is offering to us and what our Western allies in Europe offers to its people. Therefore, if Sanders' Socialism is evil, was FDR's New Deal evil as well?  If what Sanders proposes is evil, then was King's proposals evil as well? And if what Sanders is proposing is evil, then are our Western European allies evil because of what they provide for their people?

Of course, when one goes into the details of Phillips' 3 reasons for why Socialism is evil, one runs into other problems. For example, Phillips believes that providing free college education advances an anti-work agenda. Well, having taught college, I can safely say that, for many students, the number of hours they must work at a job in order to pay for school greatly interferes with them acquiring a working education. Thus, they end up paying more and more for a degree than an education, and considering the amount of money they must pay for the degree, this is a great injustice. So no, unless we can call parents who pay for their kids education 'anti-work,' having the government pay for college education does not necessarily promote an anti-work ethic. However, colleges that lower their academic standards in order to retain a certain quota of students do advance an anti-work ethic. And some colleges feel the need to do that partially because of the work schedule demands some students must meet to stay in school.

Other points could be made to about Phillips' article. Suffice it to say, that his article shows him to be terribly misinformed to the point of where one could suspect him of being a mere propagandist. And I am writing this as one who will not vote for Sanders because I regard him as being way too politically conservative. But Phillips' possible serving as a propagandist repeats a point raised at the beginning of this blogpost.  Is he reinforcing the stereotype that Conservative Christianity serves to indoctrinate people in order to maintain the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power? If he is, then he is not alone. That is because, even outside of American history, Conservative Christianity has often aligned itself with wealth and power. And, as happened during revolutions like the French and Russian ones, the results were beneficial for neither the reputation of the Gospel nor for the Conservative Church itself.