Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 28, 2018

Nov 27

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost complaint that a change in the tax code will make employee money spent on public transportation taxable for nonprofit organizations. This change will bring a host of additional problems for these organizations.

The title's stated concern over threats to religious liberty is not even mentioned, let alone supported by the article. Rather, what we have above is a complaint that a free lunch of some public service has been taken away from nonprofit organizations. I could see the complaint being made for those nonprofit organizations whose primary purpose is to provide a direct service to the public. But I can't justify the complaint for houses of worship.

And though I can't justify the above complaint for houses of worship, I can understand it by referring to a famous quote from a 1974 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. That quote is, 'follow the money.' And it seems that along with the support from many religiously conservative Christian leaders for neoliberal Capitalism and the materialism that they have allowed or even fostered in the Church over religious holidays, the above article is just another indicator of how our Free Market and the love of money has infiltrated the faith of many of these leaders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that rejects the idea that Calvinism carries with it a certain rigidity. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Let's face the truth, Calvin himself was very rigid. That rigidity was not necessarily seen in his theology as in how Calvin related to people. Like Luther, Calvin possessed an authoritarian personality type. That was demonstrated in how Calvin reacted to dissent: his reactions were often over the top bombastic. The epitome of his over the top bombastic reactions to dissent can be found in his support for the murder of Michael Servetus for heresy.
In addition, a number of Calvinist leaders have quite recently spoken against being nice in how we sometimes should theologically disagree with others. It is as if remaining loyal to basic tenets of the faith requires a certain harshness when interacting with those who believe otherwise.
From what I've seen, some Calvinist leaders have been playing the persecution card when challenged by others. Rather than asking their people to be more self-aware, which should be part of one's life of repentance, these leaders are promoting the idea that persecution is almost always the result of people's reactions to our statements of faith rather than our behavior. This is especially true regarding how we react to the LGBT community.
Sorry, despite being a Calvinist to some degree myself, I find the charge that many of us are rigid to be very credible. Thus being unnecessarily rigid is a trait we should acknowledge and work on rather than one we should deny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about how Evangelical Christians must work long and hard to become Reformed in their faith. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

One must be concerned with Clark's claims about the Reformed faith here. For he portrays it as a higher form of Christianity that is gained by those Christians who work long and hard to achieve a higher level of knowledge that is not available to regular Evangelical Christians. His claims mix the descriptions of the Gnostics with those of the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying. And in neither case was a higher spiritual level achieved.

I lean more toward the faith of Calvin and Luther than to Arminian theology. But I would never speak as if the faith and thinking of Calvin and Luther were superior to Arminian theology. I just agree with more individual points made by the former theologies while acknowledging the vast amount I can learn from the latter theology.

The height of the pedestal on which Clark has placed Reformed Theology invites tribalism. And once tribalism begins to be embraced, then Christ is automatically displaced by theologies that claimed to have put Him on his rightful throne. Surely Paul would ask Clark if Luther and Calvin died for our sins? If Clark had noted some of the faults of Reformed theology and how because of that we can learn from Arminian theology, I would not object as much to Clark's overall claims. But that was not the case here.

Can Anything So Nebulous Be Good?

All too many times, when someone protests against something the question that comes back is, "What is your solution?" Unfortunately, Peter Leithart provides no practical solution to the problem he describes but that should not stop us from hearing his case. In a combination of speeches, panel discussion, and question answering, Peter Leithart, Fred Sanders, and Carl Trueman talked about the future of Protestantism (click here for the event). For the most part, this blogpost will focus on Leithart's take on the subject. 

While Sanders and Trueman talked about some ominous possibilities for Protestantism in the near future, Leithart wants the evangelical world to move past PROTESTantism to becoming Reformational Catholics. In other words, he wants Protestants to quit identifying themselves by who they are not and, along with the Eastern Orthodox, unite the branches of Christianity into one body, the Church. We must consider ourselves members of one body because the body of Christ should never be divided.

What has Leithart concerned here are divisions within the body of Christ. And these divisions are amplified by tribalism, a subject not new to this blog (click here and there).  But while the working definition for tribalism used by this blog revolves around strong loyalties leading moral relativity, Leithart has something else in mind. Certainly, strong loyalties are involved here, but instead of  loyalties leading to relative moralism, for Leithart they cause people to look at those from designated other churches as foreigners, outsiders. And this is despite how the Reformers looked at the Roman Catholic Church. As a result, many Protestants see little to nothing of value coming from the Roman Catholic Church while not being shy in saying what they could teach the Roman Church. That illustrates a variation of what Martin Luther King Jr. said about the West during the Vietnam War:

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

We should also note that Leithart dislikes Roman Catholic tribalism as much as he does Protestant tribalism.

One more point we should add is that Leithart's suggestion about letting Protestantism die does not even insinuate that those from the Reformed tradition should forget or even compromise on doctrine. Rather, Leithart wants us to also pay attention to what we have in common. And what we have in common are the early Church councils and other material on which both Roman Catholic and Reformed theologians follow.

What makes Leithart's proposal nebulous is that he provides almost no concrete suggestions for implementing this transformation. Here, Leithart states that a Reformation Catholicism can come about only by a special work of God. But he does layout some results, some of which may not be to the liking of many Protestants. For example, we would take joint ownership of each other's failures and scandals--including the sexual scandals of some priests. On the other hand, we can also share our specific prayer concerns and victories.

What should we make of Leithart's call for the death of Protestantism especially when he leaves out a great many details? Considering the dangers of tribalism, we should warmly welcome it. The Church should not be divided let alone let the divisions become tribal. But the targeting of tribalism is something that is needed more than ever in today's world regardless of the religiosity of the tribalism. That is because the degree of loyalty involved in tribalism distorts our perceptions and our thinking and that sometimes allows us to look down on and even abuse others

So how are we going to change from our current divisions into a Reformational Catholic Church? For the most part, it will take what amounts to a miracle according to Leithart. And the timing for that is God's call. And for us Protestants, it means that we will have to let go of protesting the Roman Catholic Church while cleaving to Reformed Theology. As said before, we need to focus on what we have in common while we suggest corrections for each other. And then, perhaps, we need to  change how we frame what we see as distortions in the other branches of Christianity while remaining faithful to our views. For if we use the language employed in the discussion of the video when describing the Roman Catholic Church, Catholics will rightly detect an air of superiority and will perceive us as attempting to establish a paternalistic relationship with them rather than are relationship between equals. At this point, we will be right back where we started.

To further Leithart's cause here, he and others who agree need to present to the Protestant Church what Tim Keller called "blended insights" from his model of the churches practicing different approaches to cultural engagement (click here for the model). These blended insights must be contemporary and exclusive to each branch of Christianity. So what Leithart or others must present to Protestants to transform the current Protestant Church is to list all of the beneficial contemporary ideas and practices which Catholics exhibit but Protestants don't. Likewise, he needs to do the same for the Eastern Orthodox Church. Those in the Roman Catholic Church must return the favor regarding Protestantism and list for its followers the positives that belong exclusively to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Finally, the Eastern Orthodox Church must follow suit.

One of the ways to overcome tribalism and even divisions is to show both one's own group's deficiencies and the exclusive strengths of the other groups. Of course, it might be tricky to agree on lessons we can learn from the other branches, but perhaps this is where changing the ecclesiastical status quo to Reformational Catholicism can begin.

I know personally, as a person who belongs to the Reformed Tradition, several benefits which I have gained from Roman Catholics. First, my best friend is a Roman Catholic and I have learned more from her and her examples of showing compassion than I have from all of the authors I have read. My friend and I regard each other as mentors. Second, I have benefitted greatly from the Roman Catholic lay ministry of Ralph C. Martin. Third, I very much appreciated what Pope Francis has said about today's Capitalism. As a Protestant, I am envious of the Roman Catholic Church whose leadership has such penetrating insights into today's economics while those who follow the Reformed Tradition tend to support the economic status quo. And finally, I appreciate, and am envious of, the social consciousness possessed by many Roman Catholics, regardless of political viewpoints, which is so sorely missing in those who belong to the individualist-oriented Protestant denominations. These points of appreciation do not imply that I cannot disagree with the Roman Catholic Church on many issues. What this points do however is to level the playing field between Roman Catholics and myself so that I don't regard my strengths as indicating any kind of superiority.

Unfortunately, I do not have any contacts with those from the Eastern Orthodox Church. But perhaps it is time that I should establish some. 

The Church could also contribute to broader goals than reunification if it were to follow Leithart's proposal. Suppose we learned how to stop following the demands of tribalism, perhaps the world could do the same in just a small degree if it saw us doing so.

An MLK Approach To The Reformed Question Of To Transform Or To Enjoy 2 Kingdoms

There is a divide in the Reformed Presbyterian Churches today regarding how the Church should live in society and relate to culture. We should first note that there being a divide in the Reformed Presbyterian Churches should surprise nobody. That is because purists, of which the Reformed Presbyterian Churches have in great abundance, are the mathematical reciprocals of rabbits. Whereas rabbits multiply, purists divide. And this is true for purists in most movements whether those movements reside on the right or the left side of issues. 

As mentioned, one of the divides in the Reformed Presbyterian Churches today regards how the Church and its members should relate to society--or perhaps instead of saying "relate to," we should say, "try to control." In one corner are those on the transformational side who believe that part of the Church's mission in bringing Christ to the world is to change culture in accordance with the Scriptures. In the other corner stands the Two-Kingdom (a.k.a., 2K, which is not to be confused with K to 2) Christians who believe that because the Church resides in two separate worlds, a redeemed world and a more general but fallen world, there are two different standards of righteousness for each and the Church would do well not to confuse the two. While 2K theology is rather libertarian concerning how individual Christians react to today's issues and concerns, it doesn't see the Church as having the duty to speak out and take a stand on most of today's societal and cultural issues.

Now what we should note is that when purists cause divisions, they become very territorial and tribal over their new territory. As that occurs, sometimes defensiveness kicks in as fangs are bared and aggression is unleashed toward outsiders who would venture into one's yard by criticizing (a.k.a., reviewing) one's theology. And as the purist defends their own turf, the ghosts of Christmas Past, such as Augustine and Calvin, are summoned to give authority to the defense of one's own position. And there are purists on both sides of the Transformational vs 2K battle who do this. This calling on Augustine, Calvin and other notables from the past is very important here because of the authoritarian culture in which the followers of both theologies reside.

Though there are some who know how to take this debate in stride, there are others are harmed by the division. And perhaps those who are harmed the most are those who most enthusiastically, and with a sense of righteous superiority, participate in the contest. They seemed to be forever condemned to a tribalism that includes the finding of faults in others and a whitewashing of those in their own camp.

So perhaps a different approach needs to be taken so as to join together those who believe in Christ but have let themselves be divided. And perhaps if this approach can join my fellow Conservative Christians from two different theological camps, it can facilitate our working with nonChristians on important worldly issues. It is important to work side by side with nonChristians on worldly issues because such gives us tremendous opportunities to share the Gospel. And we can share the Gospel not just in what we say, but in how we are willing to learn from others.

In comparing Capitalism to Communism, Martin Luther King Jr was an equal opportunity critic. But he also acknowledged that both sides had important truths to share. Both his criticisms and tributes were meant to join the two sides together. He wanted to join the two sides along with any innocent bystanders, which we could call collateral healing, by proposing the need for a synthesis of the two political-economic approaches. So in talking to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1967, he said that both Communism and Capitalism forget something important. While Communism forgot the individuality in life, Capitalism left out that we are interdependent and live in community. In essence, because of how each side emphasized their truths, they were blind to the contributions made by the other side. (click here).

Now if King could not only see the benefits from two such opposing ideologies, but also the possibility that the two sides could be joined together, why shouldn't Reformed believers in Christ be able and willing to forge at least a partial synthesis between the two sides in this intramural debate? Perhaps the synthesis would be partial and not complete. But then there would at least be more fellowship and less tribalism--note how opposite those two concepts should be to Christians.

We should note that the Conservative Christian Church, especially the Reformed ones, have provided two kinds of stumbling blocks for those hearing of the Gospel. The Conservative Christian Church has both tried to force unnecessary constraints on society in the name of religious paternalism while remaining silent, and thus complicit, on society's social sins. And since the time of Constantine, what these two kinds of stumbling blocks have had in common is that they usually serve the interests of those with wealth and power. And they do so by giving the appearance of either controlling sin or giving freedom while leaving unchallenged oppressive systems.

We should note that when there is a cultural push back to the laying of these stumbling blocks, Conservative Christians cry persecution or claim rejection of the Gospel. This is unfortunate because Conservative Christians interpret the persecution kind of push back as a first strike. In addition, Conservative Christians will interpret some push back as rejection of the Gospel rather than a spurning of the stumbling block. Though some push back is due to an animosity toward the Gospel, more might be from the rejection of Conservative Christians themselves. And thus, it would be helpful if my fellow Conservative Christians would interpret at least some of the push back as constructive feedback. Of course, the disadvantage of interpreting push back that way is that one would have to interpret the placing of stumbling blocks as a first strike.

Reformed Theology has a rich Biblical and intellectual tradition. Thus, it could not only further the preaching of the Gospel in ways other Christian theologies cannot do, it could also help society become better. Unfortunately, its influence is sabotaged by debates, such as the one between Transformationalists and 2Kers, that not only divide believers, but cause the participants to spend inordinate amounts of time on intramural battles and insufficient amounts of time and energy in determining how we can better share the Gospel. 

And if we add to that the fact that since an overwhelming percentage of Reformed Theologians and Christians in America are politically conservative and some have tightly bound their faith to their politics, what results is that whatever appeal is made to those in society, it implies that one must become a political conservative to believe the Gospel. And while that keeps congregations somewhat politically homogeneous, it hinders the call to believe from adequately reaching all people who hear us. Perhaps a measure for how effective our preaching of the Gospel has been is the diversity that exists in our congregations in terms of race, economic class, political views, as well as other categories that are currently outside my thinking.