You're In Seminary Now To Study Church And State, Part 1

Instead of reviewing an article, we will be listening to a seminary lecture on the relationship between the Church and State. We will be listening to Kevin DeYoung (click here for a bio) as he lectures at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC.  The class that DeYoung is teaching here is Systematic Theology. Systematic Theology concerns itself with an organized approach to understanding  Christian doctrines.

The audio linked to in this post contains 2 lectures (click here for the lecture covered in this article). The lecture we are concerned with starts around the 1:11:14 mark. The lecture is an introduction to the relationship between the Church and State. It starts with identifying the mission of each one.

In that lecture, DeYoung first cites James Bannerman (click here for bio), a Scottish Reformed Theologian from the 1800s on what the mission of the Church is. Such is an important question when defining its relationship to the state so that we understand when the Church is trying to do too much and when it isn't doing enough in terms of how it relates to the State. Young then gives his own description of the mission of the Church. He states that the mission of the Church is to:

1. Lead people to believe in Christ as their Savior
2. Make disciples--which involves teaching them how to follow Christ
3. Start other churches

And so however the Church is to relate to the State, it must fit into the confines of the Church's mission otherwise the Church is either trying to do either too much or not enough. The mission of the State is to promote the well being of its citizens. And then the question becomes who belongs to the Church and who belongs to the State. Those who believe in Christ as their Savior and submit to the Church's leadership including its discipline belong to the Church. Those who belong to the State, or we could also say to society, includes those who belong  to the Church along with those who don't.

To offer some contrast here, DeYoung then provides the definitions of the Church and State as provided by Stephen Wolf who promotes Christian Nationalism. DeYoung states that Wolf believes that the Church is a 'colony of heaven' while the Christian nation provides a 'complete image of eternal life on earth.' This seems to make the Christian nation more revelatory of how God relates to us than the Church is suppose to.

In response to Wolf, DeYoung describes the Church as an embassy for God's people. This model of thought points out that Christians are in a foreign land and that the Church is there to protect believers in Christ and to promote their interests and welfare while they live in a foreign land

Where does all of this leave us? In terms of the mission of the Church, we need to know what is involved in helping people to become believers in Christ. But the Church is interested in more than just participating in people becoming believers, the Church is there to teach believers how to follow Christ throughout their lives. And that includes sending out believers so that they can start new churches.

But in all of this, there are two contextual questions we need to ask. First, what is involved with helping people become believers in and be disciples of Christ in the 21st century as compared to the 1st century? Second, what are people's place in the State now as compared to the Apostolic times?

The first question deals with both what we need to say to help people believe and how we should live as Christians so that our lives do not interfere with people's desire to listen to the Gospel. And unlike the 1st century when Christian life was more simple, Christians must either stand on the shoulders of or apologize and repent for how past believers have behaved. For we need to realize two truths here: 1) that once we call ourselves Christians, everything that we do or say as well as that which we refrain from doing or saying can effect the reputation of the Gospel; and 2) we all stumble in many ways. And we cannot over emphasize that 2nd part so that truth should scare each of us believers very much. For not only do we have to account for all that we do or say and all that we don't do or don't say, we have to account for the same from our spiritual ancestors.

That part of having to account for what our spiritual ancestors said and did as well as well as did not say or did not do is part of what complicates today's Christian efforts to share the Gospel with people. And just when we could adjust to that, there is another complicating factor: the people's relationship with the State.

In a more authoritarian state, the people's relationship to the State is more simple and clearly defined. But in a democracy, people's relationship with the state can become messy and unclear. That is because in a democracy, we participate in how the State makes decisions from the local level to the national level. And here, again, we must account for the successes and failures of our spiritual predecessors in terms of how they did and did not participate in the State. Their actions and inactions have given the Gospel and the Church a track record to run on, to run away from, or to clean up. And sometimes we must do that in order to get a person to even listen to the Gospel. 

But it isn't just our ancestors who have to worry here. Being in a participatory system like a democracy means that we more of share a measure of responsibility for the actions of the State that they did in Apostolic times.

Yes, in being accountable for the past, we are tempted to over compensate and over correct. That is where we need to remember the mission of the Church. But if we don't try enough to be accountable for the past, we fail by not saying and doing enough in terms of today's issues. Especially today's social justice issues.

We should note one other thing here. Politics and religion will always be deeply intertwined for as long as religion recognizes the importance of morals. Why? That  because much of politics is about morals especially when it is concerned with social justice.

When Our Political-Economic Theories And Isms Become A Religion

 The definition of the word religion depends on how one wants to use the term. It use to be that religion was strictly defined as a set of beliefs about and veneration of a superior supernatural being. At least that is how the founders of our nation used the term. 

But now, I've seen some fellow religiously conservative Christians use the term as describing one's ultimate concern or loyalty. This brings beliefs about what is natural into the same discussion with that which is supernatural. The reason for doing so seems to be that by putting beliefs about what is natural in the same boat as beliefs about a superior supernatural being, then beliefs in either beliefs in what is natural could face the same restrictions as beliefs in what is supernatural or beliefs in what is supernatural could enjoy the same freedoms as beliefs in what is natural.

My use of the term religion here will involve neither definition. Rather,  I will be using the term 'religion' as describing beliefs that a given theory or ideology is omniscient. I using the word 'religion' that way because some religions, like Christianity, believe that God is omniscient.

We have a great and growing divide in our nation, and part of that divide can be attributed to us treating our favorite political and/or economic theory or ideology as a religion as I have just described. The signs of do so are pretty straight forward. We have made a religion out of our favorite political and/or economic theory when we have implied that it is an all-time, one-size fits all solution for how a nation should work politically and/or economically. 

Take the concept of limited government for example. Some of my fellow religiously conservative Christians believe that limiting the size and reach of government must not just always be pursued, but it is Biblical as well. The last attribute justifies the first for some while others who believe that we must always only limit the size and reach of government for more secular reasons. 

But if we take the preamble of The Constitution seriously, it is difficult to always only look to limit the size of government. That preamble says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

What happens when a large segment of the private sector threatens the general welfare of Americans in order to persue maximizing their own financial profits? Will a limited government be able to protect us from that segment of the private sector regardless of how large and more powerful it grows? Realize that as today's technology makes the individual grow more capable, it also makes that individual grow more vulnerable because other individuals are more capable. Shouldn't government protect the vulnerable especially when the number of vulnerable people increases.

Or what happens when nature, such as a pandemic or climate change, threatens to do significant harm to our present or future well-being? Will limited government always protect us from such harm? Or do we need more government so that it can act in ways that protect us now and/or in the future?

Or let's look at a couple of specific ideologies. Take Neoliberal Capitalism for example. We should note here that Neoliberal Capitalism was not the kind of capitalism that was followed in the U.S. before the 1980s. Neoliberal Capitalism calls for cutting as much government intervention in and supervision over a nation's economy that does not pertain to protecting free markets. Is such a form of a one-size-fits-all government the solution to any nation's economy regardless of the situation a nation is facing? For example as wealth and income disparities continually grow between the economic classes and races, is Neoliberal Capitalism capable of adequately controlling these growing disparities?

Or take the kind of government supervision of the economy that was practiced in the Soviet Union. Did such an approach solve all of the economic problems of the people of the Soviet Union? Did switching to a Neoliberal form of Capitalism solve all of the economic problems experienced in the Soviet Union?

A more basic question to be asked here is can any system that a person or group of people create really be omniscient? Is anyone that intelligent enough to design a political or economic approach that solves or prevents all that would threaten the general welfare of any nation? 

Those who make a religion out of their favorite political/economic theory or ideology pursue a purist approach to politics and/or economics. To illustrate what I mean, we can play with the following quote from Martin Luther King Jr. when he spoke against the Vietnam War:

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

If we put in a fill-in-the-blank for the word 'Western,' we can substitute any theory or ideology that is now treated as a religion. On the other hand, the sign that a given theory or ideology is not a religion is when people combine their favorite theory or ideology with other theories and ideologies to form hybrid solutions. Here we can think of what Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in favor of when he said that we should combine the best of Capitalism with the best of Soviet Union Communism. Why did he think that we need to combine the two? It was because of the weaknesses he observed in those two ideologies. He said that while Capitalism forgets that life is social, Soviet Union Communism forgets that life is individual. And so we must combine the best from those two systems.

When we believe that because of what we know from our own pet theory or ideology, that we have nothing to learn from others, we have elevated that theory or ideology to that of a religion. And the failure to recognize that is what is driving our nation apart. After all, does the kind of arrogance that believes that one's own group has everything to teach and nothing to learn from others teach us to tolerate or work with others or does it teach us to either rule over or discard those who disagree?

Many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians are prone to elevating their pet political and/or economic views into a religion because of our regard for principles. That is because we treat Biblical principles as applying for all time and all situations, we sometimes get confused and begin to believe that that is how we should treat principles we learn from people as well. And thus principles founded by mere people which have specific situations in which they should be applied are then applied in all situations and at all times.

Do we want to see an end to the current and growing division that exists in our nation? Then we should seek to find points of agreement with those whose beliefs and theories are different from our own. And we should do that by checking our arrogance at the door. We should stop trying to use our pet theories and ideologies as an indicator of our superiority over those who disagree. In fact, we should try to stop thinking that being superior to others is important. It is only then that we can have both a variety of theories and ideologies from which to draw our solutions from without causing further division in our nation.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 28, 2015

This week's edition of Comments Which Conservatives Block is brief due to conflicts in my personal schedule.

Oct 27

To Joe Carter and his blogpost about how our current economic system has freed us from past tyrannies and drudgeries. This appeared in the Acton Blog.

The nightmare of living in the past, or what I like to call the tyranny of tradition, applies more than to what "Free Enterprise" has brought. We do like the romanticize the past. Political conservatives practice this with our nation's Founding Fathers and The Constitution. After all, The Constitution was written to strengthen the Federal Gov't and to inhibit changes to the status quo that favored the wealthy back then. Here we should that The Constitution was written to allow the Federal Gov't to better respond to nationwide dissent and insurgencies like Shays Rebellion. Our Constitution also included racist provisions and did not address expanding voting rights to those who did not own land. We should note here that Madison was afraid that the expansion of voting rights in England would lead to agrarian reform. Thus political conservatives take a literalist approach to The Constitution. And if such an approach was consistently applied, the Federal government would have to eliminate the FAA.

As for Free Enterprise, as with other great empires, our empire has achieved the greatest wealth in human history. And certainly the current global economic system has spread much wealth. But with the spreading of that wealth comes societies that are 'thing-oriented,' as Martin Luther King would refer to them. King saw racism, poverty/materialism, and war/militarism as necessary results of societies being thing-oriented. In addition, we might add that continued destruction of the environment from an addiction to our way of life is another necessary result of being a thing-oriented society. 

So while we celebrate how our "Free Enterprise" system has freed us from some of the drudgeries and limitations experienced in the past, some fringe detriments have been flying in under our radar that are declaring that without intervention and change, we will self-destruct.

————————

To Joe Carter and his short blogpost on how religion is redistributing the world’s wealth. This appeared in the Acton blog.

This article doesn't show how religion is redistributing wealth. It shows correlations and correlations do not imply cause and effect. In addition, this article suggests that religion in general rather than any religion in particular is spreading the world's wealth. Would it follow then that one religion is as good as another and that all religions lead to the mountaintop of material wealth?

Pounding A Western Square Peg Into A Middle East Round Hole

Because of time constraints, some of the works reviewed here are rather simple. But that is not true this time. Carl Raschke wrote a good article for the website Political Theology on the Western bungling of the Middle East (click here for the article). This bungling has been occurring for over a century now. And the bungling has to do with the Western insistence that the Middle East must be based on the European Westphalian model of nation-states. And the more we insist on that model, the more we both are surprised and mess up. 

The mess ups are made by the Western nations. And here, the Western nations cannot be reduced to just America, it includes Europe as well. And America's mistakes cannot be blamed on just one of our major political parties. Both of our these political parties have committed error after error only to experience surprising, and on good ones, outcomes.

The surprises come in the form of the groups that rise up to oppose us. These groups, according to Raschke, are not based on our Western nation-state model. Instead, these groups tend to be based on a 'theo-political' model. In that model, religion is king, not the state. And the problem with relying on the Westphalian model is that it treats religion as a second class citizen. Thus, we should be able to begin to see the source of at least some of our problems. So as we blunder our way through nation after nation, we are ignorant, willfully so according to Raschke, of what we are doing and what to expect next.

The only criticism I could have on this article is a claim made by a Politico article he cites stating that Obama is resisting being involved in the region. How can one say that when troops are still stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as drone activity has increased and the supporting of proxy leaders continues?

Other than that, the question becomes, when will we learn? In describing the West as having 'willful ignorance,' Raschke's answer, at least for today, appears to be obvious. It is the same answer Peter Pan would give about when he would grow up:  'NEVER'!

Would say more about the article but such would distract from something you should read for yourself. So please click the article's link at the beginning of this post and read for yourself.

As Bad As It Is, Racism Is Just One Of Our Dire Problems

Thabiti Anyabwile is a pastor and a contributor to the Gospel Coalition website. He just wrote a blogpost for that website which talked about how engrained racism is in people (click here). Before that blogpost, he wrote a series of blogpost containing letters to and from a Ferguson protester. Some of those letters were excellent in content and writing. But our concern here is the article linked to above.

To show how pervasive and profound our problem with racism is, he likens it to a cactus plant he once planted in the front of his yard. He discovered that he had to remove it because of how the growth of this plant was  effecting some of the other vegetation. And it wasn't until he tried to remove the cactus that he realized how deep and far its roots went.  This is why he likens racism to a cactus plant. For though some things have improved, racism is still there in force and it exists in other places besides individual people.

For example, Anyabwile vaguely cites the latest DOJ investigation of Ferguson that states that the city has a problem with 'institutional racism'  (click here for news report on the DOJ investigation). And who could argue with that when it found that the police department there showed a pattern of 'racial bias' as evidenced in the force used, citations issued, and traffic stops made. That this racial bias reached into the court system as measured in the number of cases not dismissed against Blacks. Others have reported incidents of misconduct by various police officers which included false arrests and the planting of evidence (click here and there). This doesn't include the failure to indict police officers for their violence against unarmed Blacks. The Eric Garner incident comes to mind here because of the video evidence. At the same time, we see violent White criminals apprehended rather than killed such as the man who ambushed and killed a Pennsylvainia State Trooper and the white supremacist who was just apprehended after a shooting spree in Arizona (click here)

When we add this to the number of unarmed Blacks shot by police and the inordinate percentage of minorities who are incarcerated, there is not much doubt regarding Anyabwile's claims. We should note that he could have made a stronger case by providing documentation. For example, Anyabwile also mentions that judges are in on the racial bias action, but he offers no testimonies or documentation.

Above is the institutionalized racism, that doesn't include racism practiced by those in the private sector. We should note the racist rant recorded by a fraternity at Oklahoma (click here and there), the Trayvon Martin shooting, and a Black man was found hung in Mississippi just recently (click here). Regarding the last instance, the FBI is investigating and so no conclusions can be drawn as to why this man hung. 

In essence, Anyabwile is correct in his assessment of our problems with racism. But, again, he neither documented nor provided enough testimonies to make a strong case. And since what he is saying is basically correct, his lack of a strong case can partially sabotage his efforts.

However, Anyabwile makes an excellent point by noting that our problem with racism is a Christian discipleship as well as a social justice issue. The implication of his point here is that Christians are not just called on to combat racism on a personal level, they are to join everyone else in publicly fighting it. This includes calling on our government to address the issue.

But something else needs to be said here. Anyabwile makes the following statement:

It’s tragic that the country’s biggest sin is racism and the Church’s biggest omission is racial justice. The tragedy gets compounded when one remembers that some quarters of the Church were once the strongest supporters of this sin.

This statement must be challenged not because racism is not a huge problem, it must be  challenged because we need to step back to see the other major problems we have and check if they're related. We should note that the problem with ISIS is not racism, it is a religious warfare problem. The problem with Wall Street and corruption is not racism, it is economic classism.  And we should note how American Conservative Christians have been trying to use the law to keep homosexuals from achieving a fuller equality through the access to same-sex marriage. Russia and the United States are causing problems because of nationalism. And concerning nationalism, it would help to remember what Bobby Seale,  cofounder of the original Black Panthers organization, said on a talk show. He equated nationalism with racism because both dealt with issues of superiority.

So really, the world's biggest problem is tribalism, which can involve racism, and the Church's biggest 'omission' is not challenging this tribalism whether that tribalism revolves around religion or race, national identity or sexual orientation, or economic class.  Our loyalty to our groups is becoming so strong that not only do we more easily look at outsiders as threats and the source of all evil, we easily excuse our dehumanizing actions toward them while exalting ourselves.

That we go on from racism to approach the problem more abstractly, we find that we are presenting an even a bigger challenge to the Church than calling on it to oppose racism. This is  because much of the Church has even closer ties to money and those with wealth than it has to race. For example, some Conservative Churches are beginning to address the racial issue. But very few, if any, are challenging the economic classism problem as it exhibits itself in an ever increasing income and wealth disparities as well as a growing hopelessness for those imprisoned in the underclass. Though the Conservative Church as a whole still has a dismal record in combatting racism, its battle against economic classism is almost nonexistent. 

And how many Christian churches are challenging the abuses of nationalism? Currently, the churches in Syria and Egypt are battling the temptation of compromising speaking the truth to power because those in power, who so harshly abuse others, are making efforts to protect the churches. Thus, these churches have to choose between enjoying protection and spiritually biting the proverbial hand that feeds them.

In America, the failure of the Conservative Church to challenge nationalism is not due to a fear of losing protection; its failure is because many in the Conservative Church feel pride and a sense of significance in celebrating nationalism. And by exalting our nation and associating our faith with our nation's accomplishments, it is a way of exalting oneself as well. Thus, any challenge to our nation's prestige is interpreted as being a slap in the face by those who are proud Americans.

If Anyabwile could only step back from racism and see that our real problem is tribalism regardless of whether race is involved, he would have said that the Conservative Church's biggest omission is social justice. And that would have included the complicity in racism of which many in the Conservative Church are guilty.

There is a P.S. here. In listing the different kinds of groups we join and embrace tribalism, I forgot to mention one of the major kinds of groups: political-economic ideology. 

A Christian View Of The Fourth Of July

In America's past, people use to wear both their patriotism and their religion on their sleeves. And sometimes, distinguishing between the two was rather difficult. Both called one to live and die for a cause greater than oneself and thus both were seen as badges of honor. This is still practiced today especially by Conservatives. And when it is practiced, it is done with little, if any, reflection and self-criticism.

The conflation between patriotism and religion is normal. Karl Barth talked against it in commenting on what happened in World War I and how everybody was claiming that the same God was on their side. And when we think about what happened then, we realize that their conflation of national identity and religion was just another way of them praising themselves. So though the sides who are at war today call on different deities, the principle being practiced is the same.

I don't know about how this conflation affects any other religion, but I know that the merging of patriotic pride with Christianity can only occur at the expense of fully understanding and appreciating the Gospel. The belief that one's side merits God's favor is easily disproven by a reading of Romans 1-3; for what applies to individuals also applies to groups. And though an honest look at one's enemy will cause one to conclude that they deserve God's judment, so should a look in a nonmagic mirror lead us to the same conclusion about ourselves. And in almost every war, an honest appraisal of all groups involved should result in finding enough evidence that disqualifies each group from claiming they represent God. And if past and current sins aren't enough to convince us of that, the inconsistencies that follow our conflicts should so that, in each war, the most optimal moral situation we can acknowledge is that one's own group represents the lesser of all evils.And lest one takes pride in that, to adapt what one bumper sticker said, to support the lesser of all evils is to still support evil. Christians are called to speak prophetically to all who practice evil.

Noting that part of patriotism is a way of seeking signficiance by making associations with heros who share the same national identity, we Christians should be asking ourselves if seeking such signficance is something that should be sought especially in the light of what Paul wrote in Philippians 3:1-10. For there, Paul talks about voiding himself of any significance that comes from his national identity and seeking only the significance that comes from believing in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. We might even want to consider whether the act of taking too much pride in patriotism or any other association with others is evidence that we close to practicing polytheism.


The above will not move many to question the value of patriotism. Why? Because reveling in patriotism feels good. It feels too good. And thus, questions are neither required nor wanted. How unfortunate that is for us Christians because we should be asking ourselves if seeking the significance that comes from celebrating patriotism means that we aren't fully appreciating what it means to belong to Jesus.

ONIM For May 5, 2014

Christian News

• United Church Of Christ Files Lawsuit Against Gay Marriage Ban In North Carolina, Citing Threat To Religious Freedom -- Huffington Post
• Israel Comes To A Halt To Mark Holocaust Remembrance Day -- Huffington Post
• A Response To Rev. Franklin Graham -- Huffington Post
• Christian Online Community Launches Petition Against Sarah Palin Following Waterboarding Remark -- Huffington Post
• Are Young People Curious About Christianity -- Christian Today (UK)
• Religion Is 'Indispensable' In Development -- Christian Today (UK)
• Is Christian Growth Keep Pace With Islam -- Christian Today (UK)
• A World Vision For Church And Parachurch -- Christianity Today
• And The Walls Came Tumbling Down In China's Jerusalem -- Christianity Today
• Crisis Pregnancy Centers: Losing On Google, Winning In Court? -- Christianity Today
• Pastor Tony Evans On Homosexuality, Christianity, And The 'Far Too Silent' Black Church -- The Christian Post
• 7 Reasons The Bible Is So Relevant -- The Christian Post
• 5 Myths About Anxiety And Depression -- The Christian Post
• Catholic Healthcare Is Not The Enemy -- Religion Dispatches

World News

• Kerry Warns Of Israel 'Apartheid' -- Yahoo News
• Egypt Sentences 683 To Death In Mass Trial -- New York Times
• Uproar In Egypt After Judge Sentences More Than 680 To Death -- New York Times
• At Least 17 Killed As Tornadoes Rip Through Arkansas, Oklahoma -- Reuters
• Mayor Of Eastern Ukraine City Shot In The Back -- Yahoo News
• City Will Pay $55,000 To Settle Case Of Occupy Livestreamer Josh Boss, Tackled By High Ranking NYPD Chief -- The Village Voice
• OK To Sell Widow's Home Over $6 Bill, Judge Rules -- Yahoo News
• Obama Administration Quietly Strips Senate Bill Of Provision Requiring Disclosure Of Annual Drone Kills -- Jonathan Turley
• Mississippi's Business Owners Protest State's Anti-Gay Laws -- Huffington Post
• Demanding 'Just And Sustainable' Economy For All, Thousands March On Congress -- Common Dreams
• Cop Breaks 10 Year-Old Boy's Leg For Filming Him, Sexually Assaults His Mother -- The Free Thought Project
• Illinois Powers 91 Communities With 100 Percent Clean Energy -- EcoWatch
• Trading Away Our Water Rights -- Watershed Sentinel
• Kerry Declines To Say Israel Gives "Equal Rights For All Citizens" -- The Electronic Intifada
• BP Well Sprays Crude Oil Mist Over 27 Acres Of Alaskan Tundra -- Climate Progress
• State Department Gives 87% Of Afghan Funds To Only Five Recipients -- The Dissenter
• The Adjunct Revolt: How Poor Professors Are Fighting Back -- The Atlantic
• Posing As U.S. Officials, Yes Men Announce Renewable Energy Revolution At Homeland Security Congress -- Democracy Now
• Seattle Mayor Details Plans For $15 Minimum Wage -- New York Times
• Sen. Tom Coburn: Why Not Raise The Minimum Wage To $20, $25, or $100 -- Washington Times
• Glory Days Of American Manufacturing Are Not Coming Back: Steve Rattner -- Yahoo Finance
• Workers Rise Up In Celebration And Protest On May Day -- Common Dreams
• Native Americans Promise Direct Action To Stop The Keystone Pipeline By Any Means Necessary -- The Anti-Media
• David Barton Invents Reasons The Founding Fathers Did Not Grant Women The Vote -- Politicus USA

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• The Crime Of Peaceful Protest (pg 1 of 3) -- Truthdig
• Shocking Number Of Innocent People Sentenced To Death, Study Finds -- Huffington Post
• Rape, Rape Culture, And The Problem Of Patriarchy -- Waging Nonviolence
• Noam Chomsky: Red Lines In Ukraine And Elsewhere -- Truthout

ONIM For April 14, 2014

Christian News

• Why Do Progressive Religious Institutions Support Conservative Muslims? Part 1 -- Huffington Post
• It's Time To Stop Pitting 'Christian Neighborliness' Against Christian Truth -- Huffington Post
• 10 Tips For Christian Evangelism (from An Atheist) -- The Camels With Hammers Blog
• Daily Bible Reading And Prayer Is A Struggle For Many Evangelicals -- Christian Today (UK)
• Ukrainian Priests Told To Keep Out Of Politics -- Christian Today (UK)
• Carrying The Cross For Unborn Children -- Christian Today (UK)
• India's Christians Shrug -- Christianity Today
• Vietnam Is Getting Better, And Worse -- Christianity Today
• How Do I Talk With Someone Whose World View Opposes My Own -- Christianity Today
• What Would The Framers Think Of Evicting Churches From NYC Schools -- The Christian Post
• Sexual Atheism: Christian Dating Data Reveals A Deeper Spiritual Malaise -- The Christian Post
• The Internet Is Not Killing Religion, Religion Is Killing Religion -- Religion Dispatches
• Policing Academic Freedom: A Book, A Controversy, And The Ominous Aftermath -- Religion Dispatches
• Passover With Mahammed: A Jewish Journalist In Yemen -- Religion Dispatches

World News

• NATO Warns Russia Agains 'Historic' Ukraine Mistake -- Yahoo News
• 7 Arrested At Drone Protest -- Popular Resistance
• Journalism Awards Honor Scahill, Greenwald, And Others -- Ithaca College
• Indigenous Artist Greg Deal On 'Redskins' Name Controvery -- Aljazeera
• Code Pink VT Protests Ben And Jerry's Sales In Illegal Settlement In Palestine-- Popular Resistance
• The Terrorist Nun Who Committed Crimes Of Peace -- Popular Resistance
• Obama Opens The East Coast To Seismic Blasting; Drilling To Come -- Switchboard
• Jimmy Carter: Southern White Men Turn To The GOP Because Of 'Race' -- Huffington Post
• UPS Rehires 250 Workers After Firing Them For Protesting -- Huffington Post
• Thought Secure, Pooled Pensions Teeter And Fall -- NY Times
• North Carolina Shows Strains Within GOP -- NY Times
• Russia: Chechen Activist Leader Arrested, Beaten -- Thomson-Reuters Foundation
• Another Study Shows Charter Schools Do No Better Than Public Schools -- Common Dreams
• The Inside Story Of How Banks And Bankers Control Our Politics -- NY Daily News
• Accusation In Montana Of Treating Rape Lightly Stirs Unlikely Public Fight -- NY Times
• 3 Dead After Suburban Kansas City Shooting -- Yahoo News

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• The Crucible Of Iraq -- Truthdig
• The Carter Administration: Myth And Reality -- Chomsky.info

Is It Religion Or Just Conservative Christianity That Is The Opiate Of The People

Perhaps no other line has so aroused such tribal anger from Christians than Karl Marx's quote about religion:

It is the opium of the people¹

Such a line is seen as an atheistic challenge to a duel. The Christian response has been varied depending on where on the progressive-Conservative Christianity continuum one finds oneself. The more progressive a Christian or Church is, the more one agrees with Marx. But the problem with following liberal Christianity here is that there is also greater likelihood of denying the essentials of the faith. We should note that Marx denied the existence of "eternal truths" and thus in the nullification of both religion and morality.² Following him here would make it impossible to also follow Jesus.

However, the more conservative a Christian is, the more one not only rejects not only Marx's statement here, the more one gives a thumbs down to all of what Marx said. So we might want to question the Conservative Christian response to Marx's declaration about religion. And we can do so in this way. Suppose Marx had seen how Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. used their respective faiths to help liberate people, would Marx have qualified his statement about religion? In other words, was Marx's statement derived from the definition of either religion or Christianity, or was his statement a simple observation? And if it was a simple observation what are we doing to change that perception?

The Conservative Christian response to Marx and Marxism is to attack it on two different fronts. The first front is to attack Marx and Socialism by pronouncing them guilty by association. That first condemning association is that of Socialism with the Soviet Union and Red China. The second association is with Nazi Germany.

In pronouncing Marx and Socialism to be associated with the failures and atrocities of the Soviet Union and Red China, Conservatives show themselves to have missed reading the not so fine print regarding what both Marx said and Socialism stands for. What they missed reading was first, Marx's goals; and second, some of Marx's means. Marx's goals revolved around making man independent and autonomous, especially in terms of what he does. According to Marx, this can only occur under a certain set of social relations where there is neither dependence by nor domination over workers, both of which result in exploitation.

So while Conservative Christians emphasize what Marx said about the State owning and/or being in control of private property, credit, communication, transportation,  factories, and use of farmland,³ they overlook Marx's high regard for democracy, what he said about workers being in control, and that the private property to be owned by the state was Bourgeoisie property used for production. It was his perception that the Capitalist way of life was that of enslaving workers without owning them as slaves.

Here, two points must be made. With regard to Marx wanting to abolish private property, Marx was concerned with the Bourgeoisie's private, property of production because it was being used to subjugate people. We should also note that the Bourgeoisie has also been engaged in the abolishing of private property. This was noted in the first grievance in Occupy Wall Street's (OWS) Declaration Of The Occupation Of New York City (click here) which refers to how millions of people lost their homes to banks as banks applied a maximize profit ethic to the business of mortgages. That ethic caused the violation of Constitutional rights of mortgage holders (click here).

The other point is that just because there was State control, doesn't mean that Marxism or Socialism were being followed. Chomsky notes that both Lenin and Trotsky moved away from Socialist principles by turning to the right (click here). Their turn to the right was a turn to elite-centered governance as opposed to worker councils. A similar point is made by Russian Marxist and contemporary to Lenin and Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg (click here). Noting that since the first tenet of Socialism is worker control over production, it is obvious that the Soviet Union was socialist in name only (SINO if you will). It is also obvious that the same applies to Red China. This is because the state was run by elites rather than workers.

Thus, the Conservative Christian attempt to find Marxism and Socialism guilty for the crimes of the Soviet Union and Red China becomes empty. An elite-centered hijacking of the revolutions perhaps gave a partial form of Marxism and Socialism but lacked the substance. The form consisted of government size and control as well as collectivism. The Marxist/Socialist substance of both who was in control and how they controlled was missing. Thus, Conservative Christians, as well as other opponents, use the 'Socialist' label as a pejorative on any government they don't like and this is especially true with our own government when under the control of the Democratic Party. 

A side note here is that Conservative Christians should be aware that a partial or even full structure doesn't always convert into the idea. For example, the structure of our government, according to the Constitution, allows for the possible creation and maintenance of a Democratic Republic. However, a hijacking of the government by wealthy elites has stopped our government from performing as a government of the people. Rather, it is acting as a government of special interests. Polls reporting public approval of our government bear this out.

The call for state control has caused Conservatives to confuse Nazi Germany with Marx and Socialism too. The latest example of such confusion can be found in a Heidelberg blog quote post (click here). This post is based on a book by George C. Watson called, The Lost Literature of Socialism (click here). But, just as any attempt to link the Soviet Union and Red China with Marxism should be done by comparing the working concepts used by those two countries with the concepts Marx advocated, so the same should be done with Nazi Germany.

Nazi Germany	Marx
Promised to and did destroy Democracy in Germany	Highly regarded Democracy
Highly nationalistic and racist	Emphasized the International
Was supported by big business. Protected but regulated ownership of this Bourgeoisie private property	Abolish Bourgeoisie private property because of its subjugation of the workers
Create a glorious German Empire under one leader/savior	Make man independent by undoing Capitalism while establishing the Proletariat

Just as how the direction provided by Lenin-Trotsky was substantially different from Socialism and Marx, we see even a greater difference between the Nazis vs Marx. And though it is more understandable to confuse the Nazis with Lenin-Stalin, to try to call Nazis 'Socialists' or 'Marxists' is irresponsible. It is done in order to discredit everything Marx said and stood for. And if people have no reason to listen to Marx, then they have no reason to listen to his criticisms of Capitalism. And it is in his criticisms of Capitalism where we we have the most to gain from him. 

The second front of the Conservative Christian's attack on Marxism is found in comparing Marxism with Capitalism. And it seems that when making this comparison, Conservative Christians seem to exhibit tribalism and myopia. That is that they endorse the status quo while only viewing the immediate result of Capitalism to their own neck of the woods. For R. C. Sproul Sr. declared that Marx was wrong in stating that the rich get wealthy only through the impoverishment of others.⁴ Sproul stated that in the world of business, one man's gain becomes gain for others including the poor. 

But did Sproul consider how many times trading partners produce winners and losers? After all, foreign trade is part of Capitalism. NAFTA, for example, forced Mexican farmers to compete with subsidized American agribusiness which forced these farmers to either immigrate or work in factories. And as the cost of factory labor in other countries motivated businesses to move manufacturing, these new factory workers found themselves out of a job and into illegal immigration where they work for less than what the legal market pays (click here and there) and are sometimes trafficked.

In addition, American environmental standards are not followed by some of our trading partners. Thus, the factory operators could exploit the local environment because those who benefit the most from these factories, from owners to American consumers, live elsewhere. And because they live elsewhere, the people who must deal with the environmental impact of these factories are invisible or are counted as nonpersons. We should note here that sometimes trade is also done at the end of a barrel of gun. Chomsky notes that Haiti serves as an example of that both in the early 1900s as well as recently.⁵

Now consider what Marx said about wage labor and how the rich benefit by impoverishing others. A worker's primary compensation is his or her wage. That wage, according to Marx qualifies the "labor power" of the worker to be considered a commodity just as any other raw material or product.⁶ We could then reason that as the personal effort and work of a laborer is commodified, the worker is dehumanized by being relegated to being a disposable object of profit. If we include globalization with the law of supply and demand to labor, we see that as globalization increases the labor supply, wages drop. And so the work often flows to where the lowest wages are and thus job competition means unemployment or an acceptance of poverty wages for workers whose location normally demand higher wages.

So this brings us back to OWS's Declaration Of The Occupation Of New York City and another one of their grievances which states:

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.⁷

And though Sproul acknowledges how Marx could be considered a prophet who foresaw how lobbying efforts could affect a country's economics, such an admission provides a mixed message regarding how Capitalism works. On one hand, Sproul brags about how Capitalism has raised the standard of living for everyone, but on the other hand he acknowledges how there are those who profit by cheating. The implication is that that cheating has not significantly corrupted the positive results he attributes to Capitalism.  Unfortunately for Sproul's defense of Capitallism, many of America's strongest companies benefitted from what Chomsky calls "state capitalism." This is where business transactions, some of which are unnecessary, with the government has supported businesses allowing the masses to take the risk while keeping the profits for themselves.⁸ In addition, Sproul seems unaware that his country has one of the greatest wealth disparities in the industrialized world. 

We should also note, as alluded to before, how war and interventions have played an important part in America's economy.  This is true both before WWII, as witnessed to by the writings of former Marine Corps Major General, Smedley Butler (click here and there), and after WWII as documented by historian, William Blum (click here).

Sproul's defense of Capitalism and antagonism to most of what Marx said is typical of Conservative Christians. And the purpose of writing this is not to challenge people to become Marxists. Rather, the purpose is that we take seriously Marx's analysis of Capitalism so that we don't unintentionally confirm the quote at the beginning of this post. One can learn from Marx's analysis here without becoming a Marxist in how one responds to Capitalism's problems.  Personally, though I agree with much of his analysis and some of his solutions, his emphasis on the rule of the Proletariat and his ends justify the means attitude have to be totally rejected. And, as a Christian, I have to reject his denial of God and "eternal truths." 

Of course, the above describes Conservative Christianity in today's world. What should give Conservative Christians reason for pause is Rosa Luxemburg's observations of the Russian Christians in the early 1900s who sided with the Capitalists and opposed the workers (click here). Regarding Conservative Christianity, it seems to be trying too hard to prove the Left's description of the Church as being just another institution of indoctrination to maintain the status quo for the benefit of those with wealth and power.

References

1. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
2. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
3. ibid
4. Sproul, R.C. The Consequences Of Ideas: Understanding The Concepts That Shaped Our World, Crossway Books, 2000, pg 144
5. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200909--.htm
6. http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Reader.101/M&E.II.pdf
7. http://www.criticalconcern.com/Occupy%20Wall%20Street%20--%20Declaration%20of%20Oct%201,%202011.pdf
8. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200909--.htm

ONIM For Oct 7, 2013

Christian News

• Anglicans And Copts Pray For The Middle East -- Christian Today (UK)
• New Black And Multicultural Directories Launched -- Christian Today (UK)
• What Massive Survey Of U.S. Jews Reveals About U.S. Christians -- Christianity Today
• The Key To Making A Difference In The World- Christianity Today
• The State Of The Church In America -- Christianity Today
• Paul Tripp's Words That Prevent Rationalizing Sins -- The Christian Post
• Move Review Of Kirk Cameron's 'Unstoppable' -- The Christian Post
• How New Religions Are Made -- Religion Dispatches
• Does Religion Condemn Homosexuality -- Religion Dispatches

World News

• Low Wages, Top-down Unions -- Waging Nonviolence
• 5 Industries That Are Mercilessly Robbing The American People -- Popular Resistance
• The Impact And Echos Of The Wal-Mart Discrimination Case -- ZNet
• 'Killer Hornets' Kill 42 In China -- Yahoo News
• Asia's Giant Hornets Are Here -- The Cardinal
• Fukushima Could Be 15,000 Times Worse Than Hiroshima With Removal Of Fuel Rods -- The Extinction Protocol
• Water 6,700 Hundred Times More Radioactive Than The Legal Limit Spills From Fukushima -- World News from NBC
• Radioactive Water From Fracking Found In Pennsylvania Creek According To Duke Study -- Nation Of Change 
• Earthquakes Hit Romania -- Extinction Protocol
• El Salvador Government Bans Roundup Over Deadly Kidney Disease -- Sustainable Pulse
• Russia Considers Total Ban On All GMO Products -- Sustainable Pulse
• Syria: Fuel-Air Bomb Strikes School -- Human Rights Watch
• Myanmar Muslims Hide From Buddhist Mobs Admit Sectarian Violence -- Huffington Post
• Hobby Lobby Boycotts Jewish Hanukkah And Passover -- Huffington Post
• Another George Zimmerman In The Making? -- Truthdig

Unmasking a "Christian" Critique Of The Occupy Movement

He may be from England, but this Historian and journalist's criticism of the Occupy Movement might just provide the clearest reflection of the American Conservative Christianity and its own opposition from across the pond. This person's name is Timothy Stanley, P.H.D. Dr. Stanley has written articles for the London Daily Telegraph and the Washington Times as well as for other publications. And he has recently authored a book on Pat Buchanan called, Crusader: The Life And Times Of Pat Buchanan.

In a Daily Telegraph blog post entitled, The 'Christian socialist' clergymen praising the Occupy protests are more socialist than Christian. What about saving souls?(praising occupy in lieu of saving souls), Stanley laments the various levels of support that the Occupy Movement has received from religious leaders. Hence, the title of his article and this would at least indicate that the reason for his criticism of these religious leaders is that they have left their first call. But one suspects that his real objection is due to something else.

Though Stanley does provide a religious criticism of the religious leaders who support the Occupy Movement, his fault-finding is intended to discredit than to provide enlightenment. His criticisms of these leaders include their unbelief in the afterlife, their support for gay marriage, their belief in the redistribution of wealth, their belief in the ordination of women, and they're not being obsessed with saving souls--we should note that evangelizing does not contradict working for social justice and, in fact, could provide credibility to the evangelist. All of these negatives seem to be reason enough to say "consider the source" when these religious leaders lend any kind of support to the Occupy Movement.

Stanley also characterized OWS by several isolated, and sometimes serious, incidents and reported these escapades without having performed even a cursory investigation that could provide context. Stanley finishes this part of the blog post by asking what would Jesus say about all of this. Of course, we might counter by asking what would Jesus say about the greed and corruption inside Wall Street.

What is missing in Stanley's description  of OWS are its contributions and positive attributes. OWS has, for example, at least temporarily changed the national dialog and focus on to those in need. In addition, OWS has provided an imperfect but more than adequate example of different ways of being together and exercising democracy. And, OWS has, for the most part, remained nonviolent despite the harsh police treatment they have sometimes received. Whereas what Stanley mentioned were isolated incidents, the positive aspects of OWS are the norm and are exhibited by an overwhelming majority of its participants.

What is significant about Stanley's article is not what is found in the insights he provides, which are lacking, but in the similarities his criticisms have with the way American Conservative Christians condemn OWS. Most American Conservative Christians I've talked to would never go to an OWS event because these events are not designed to save souls. They give this reason as if those who protest could never preach and share the Gospel. Many American Conservative Christians with whom I have discussed OWS also characterize the movement by the isolated incidents Stanley mentioned and use these to discredit the movement. Most American Conservative Christians also strongly oppose any kind of redistribution of wealth and they often cite "religious" reasons.

In the end, what both Stanley and most American Christians do here is to give reason after reason for not even listening to what those in OWS and the Occupy Movement say. Both Stanley and most American Conservative Christians prefer to ignore OWS than to acknowledge the serious national problems that greed has caused. Both Stanley and most American Christians would rather publicly condemn OWS than speak boldly against the corruption of the private sector. And when both Stanley and many American Conservative Christians incessantly insist that one must first try to save souls, they are the last ones on earth to preach a message of repentance to the corporate world and our nation's financial institutions. In the end, what most American Conservative Christians I have spoken to want least is to feel compelled to make a prolonged public stand against corruption and ambition exhibited by the powerful and wealthy from the private sector.

What most American Conservative Christians have refused to acknowledge is that how they preach the Gospel has been ineffective in finding its way to the leaders of the corporate world and our nation's financial institutions. Though OWS has many faults, it is the only group that is preaching a message of repentance to the greedy and powerful. The established church isn't and probably with selfish reasons. And many conservatives certainly refuse to challenge the corporate world and our financial institutions to change. By pointing out the sins of only one group rather than all, Stanley shows that his most deeply held values that are offended by the Occupy Movement are political rather than religious.

Sunni vs Shia American Style

While living in relative comfort, we Americans are often confused by why there is so much fighting between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Of course, part of our confusion is because we are ignorant of important details. Because of our ignorance, we often oversimplify the problem and make inaccurate generalizations regarding both Shiites and Sunnis.

Despite that, there are problems between some Shiites and some Sunnis that should not puzzle us and about which we should not be self-righteous because we have our own religious divide right here in the US. Our divide is not between any of our religious groups such as Catholics and Protestants or between Christians and Jews. Rather, our great divide is between Republicans and Democrats and this division cannot be any more glaring than during this election year.

But how can one compare the current power struggle between Republicans and Democrats with the bloody Sunni-Shiite battles that are full of violence? We cannot. But we can compare our Republican vs Democrat contests with Sunni-Shiite battles when it comes to religion. We saw the religious fervor of both the Republicans and Democrats at their respective conventions.

What went on the Republican and Democratic conventions? The conventions included mindless cheering, singing, and emotional calls to loyalty to their candidates, parties and country and the atmosphere was far more intense than any spirit of worship I have witnessed in all of the Churches I have ever attended combined.

What is the object of their worship? It is our country of course and die hard Democrats and rabid Republicans wanted to show the nation that their expressions of patriotism were more holy and faithful than that of their counterparts.

The Democrats started first with a theme that is similar to what Bush promised during the 2000 Presidential campaign. As Bush promised to restore dignity and honor to the White House, so the Democrats promise to restore America as the hope for democracy and mankind. And as Obama described how he would reestablish America's place in the world, many Democrats cheered and waved small American flags.

The Republicans responded with their own show of worship of country. With a huge American flag shown on a giant screen behind their speakers, many convention delegates held signs that echoed the theme of both their convention and McCain's message. That theme was "Country First."

What cannot be missed was that these themes are religious statements according to the Bible. For example, the prophet Jeremiah warns us that those who trust in man are cursed while those who trust in God are blessed. Jeremiah's message is clear. one cannot trust in both (Jeremiah 17:5-7). In the Old Testament, the hope of Israel was never the nation of Israel; it was God.

We should also note, for those who held signs saying "Country First," that God does not smile on those who put anything else first before Him. The first two commandments given to Moses are very clear as to who should be first. According to Moses in Exodus 20:1-6, we are not to have any gods or make any likeness for worship--like an eagle. What is ironic here is that the party that claims to know the most about God promoted the breaking of the first two commandments by putting their country first.

Now worshiping one's country does not show that a similar divide exists between Republicans and Democrats as exists between some Sunni and Shiites. But the disdain that convention attendees showed for their counterparts does. Democrats looked down on their Republican counterparts for their moral failures of not caring for those in need and for condoning and practicing torture, their economic policies that benefit the rich and hurt the rest of the country, their rush into an unnecessary war, and their assault on the Constitution.

But despite what the Democrats said, ironically, the most mean-spirited and belittling statements were made by the religiously righteous Republicans. And the object of the Republicans' scorn was not just what could legitimately be thought of as being legitimate Democratic faults such as their moral relativity or their perceived reluctance to use the military to defend the nation; the Republicans viciously attacked community organizers by stating that their work carried no responsibilities. But that is not the only expression of hatred that some Republicans have for Democrats. I would add, from my blog experiences, that SOME of these conservatives demand that all Democrats should be arrested for treason.

Much of the self-adoration and the denunciations against counterparts made by both Republicans and Democrats could be easily dismissed if it were not for an implication that results from either hoping for America to reclaim its position as the hope for democracy and mankind or putting your country first when making decisions. The inescapable conclusion of both of these themes is that whatever leadership we vote in, our military adventurism and exercises in empire will be placed above all accountability. That is because if America is the hope of man and Democracy, our leaders must be free to do whatever they think is necessary to protect the Free World from its enemies. And if our decisions are guided by the principle "Country First," then there is no other law by which our decisions can be judged. After all, when one's nation is one's god, there are no laws limiting how one can defend it.