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

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

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

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

Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze,   in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

The reason for reviewing Christian writings from these two perspectives is to determine whether today's writings show that the Church has changed since the times in which those observations were made. And for the record, I just want to say that I am not a fan of Lenin regardless of how I refer to him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze,   in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

The reason for reviewing Christian writings from these two perspectives is to determine whether today's writings show that the Church has changed since the times in which those observations were made. And for the record, I just want to say that I am not a fan of Lenin regardless of how I refer to him.

Today's review will consist of applying the above quotes to the end of a sermon preached by B.B. Warfield (click here for bio) and quoted in a blogpost by Justin Taylor on the Gospel Coalition website (click here for the blogpost). Note that what is being evaluated is what is being quoted from Warfield, not Warfield himself and what he said at other times.

In the part of the sermon being quoted, Warfield is describing the kind of self-sacrificial attitude Christians must have when they serve those in need and involve themselves in the world. Please click the above link to the blogpost to read how Warfield describes a very laudible kind of humble and sacrificial attitude that serves as an imitation of Christ in how He came into the world to serve. What is ironic here is that regardless of how worthy the kind of attitude Warfield describes is to have, by itself that attitude is a siren song that ends on the rocks of social injustice and thus the possible dishonoring of the Gospel. In other words, unless what Warfield describes lies in conjunction with other concerns, it will only compound the problems people face rather than help them.

First, we should look at least part of what Warfield said--that is for those who did not click the link. What Warfield said includes the following:

Wherever men suffer, there will we be to comfort.

Wherever men strive, there will we be to help.

Wherever men fail, there will be we to uplift.

Wherever men succeed, there will we be to rejoice.

Self-sacrifice means not indifference to our times and our fellows: it means absorption in them.

It means forgetfulness of self in others.

Certainly the above describes the ideal Christian on his/her best days of imitating Christ. But the question becomes how does what Warfield said address Vlad's concerns? In other words, though the Christian, in imitating Christ, might be an ideal example of life to those around him/her, in the end, if all we do is to both encourage those who succeed and help and comfort those who are victims of the system employed by the status quo, will we not merely resemble the street sweepers who clean up after a parade? And yes, we will be helping those who are suffering, but we will not be working for the prevention of future pain and abuse. This is the value of Vlad's statement as well as the statement from The Crisis Of Democracy. For it challenges us Christians  in being willing to sacrifice ourselves to prevent others from suffering the same problems we are cleaning up after today.

In fact, unless we challenge those who oppress others to repent, not only might we be securing praise from others for our noble efforts, we are costing those who oppress others opportunities to change.

With that being said, if we do not challenge an abusive system and those who maintain it to repent without having the same self-sacrificial attitude that Warfield describes above, then we risk sabotaging our efforts at affecting change. For challenging those with wealth and power to repent with anger and self-righteousness not only further hardens the hearts of those who are well rewarded in this life for their shrewdness, it does the same to those who ride in on their coattails. Thus, just as the self-sacrificial attitude that Warfield implores us Christians to have is insufficient by itself for us to live out our faith, it is essential to the living out our of faith.

But if how Warfield calls us to be is imitating Christ, then aren't we saying that imitating Christ is insufficient to follow Him if we so criticize Warfield's quote above ? Not at all. Why? Because we don't imitate Christ in everything He did. Though we are called to sacrifice ourselves for others as Christ came to sacrifice Himself for others, we can never make the sacrifice He made. Our sacrifice is not to atone for sins, but it is to reflect Christ's love for us to others. For while Christ knew that the end of His ministry culminated in His sacrifice on the cross, we do not know when the end of our ministry will come regardless of any sacrifice we are making at the time. In addition, our job is to make disciples of others and those others include those with wealth and power whose position in life is the result of exploiting others. Just as we are called to help the oppressed, we are also called to preach repentance to the oppressor. And here we might want to consider how it dishonors the Gospel when only nonChristians are calling on those who oppress and exploit others to repent.

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

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

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

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

Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze,   in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

The reason for reviewing Christian writings from these two perspectives is to determine whether today's writings show that the Church has changed since the times in which those observations were made. And for the record, I just want to say that I am not a fan of Lenin regardless of how I refer to him.

Tim Keller certainly needs no introduction (click here for a bio anyway). He is rightfully a highly esteemed Christian leader. He has just written a short article that both compares and implores today's Church to be like the first Church (click here for the article). Keller makes this comparison and appeal because of the volatility of our current times. This volatility especially applies, but is not limited to, today's changing sexual mores.

Keller states 3 characteristics about the first Church. The first characteristic is that it 'both offended and attracted' those around them. It offended people with its exclusivity and rejection of Rome's civil religion and much of its way of life. On the other hand, it also appealed to people because of how the Church's members kindly treated others on a personal basis. Its second characteristic dealt with the close and personal relationship with God which the Church taught its members to have. Its third characteristic was that Church offered an assurance of eternal life with God.

How do those early marks of the Church relate to today's world. The exclusivity of the Church applies not just to members but to practices such as our sexual practices. We are called to belong to a loving counterculture to today's status quo. Quoting from one of two books on the Early Church,  Keller notes that a religion that fails to distinguish itself from culture of the society in which it exists will become 'unnecessary' and cease to exist. 

So how does all what Keller notes fit into the two observations made at the beginning. We should note that whereas Keller calls on the Church to distinguish itself from its surrounding culture, this seems to only apply in terms of personal morality such as its members' sexual practices. For Keller doesn't call on the Church to distinguish itself in the areas of concern that either of the two quotes from the beginning deal with. For the quote from The Crisis Of Democracy dealt with how Christians are to live in society and to obey their private and public sector authority figures while Lenin was critical of how the Church failed to both enable workers to free themselves from exploitation and challenge the upper class to refrain from exploiting those underneath them. Keller addresses none of these issues. In fact, if one looks at the conservative Church in America, one finds more than enough encouragement for today's Church in America to not distinguish itself from its surrounding culture in terms of what it teaches about acceptable economic and social structures with the exception of racism.

Thus, Keller's boasting of the charity that the Church's members are to show and of the assurance of eternal life that the Church teaches does not challenge economically and politically exploitive structures. And in terms of the Gospel, that means that the Church is missing an opportunity to comfort some who are oppressed and to call certain people to repentance for how they take advantage of those who rank below them. Thus, though what Keller emphasizes is good, true, and necessary, it is incomplete because it does not address all the causes of exploitation. Here we should note that Keller and some others are doing excellent work in terms of challenging racism in society. But racism is not the only source of suffering that today's vulnerable experience and is not the only sin of oppression that those with power practice.

In other words, Keller's message in this article, despite the excellent points it makes, does not make the Church surpass the role that was described in the report The Crisis Of Democracy or challenge Lenin's observation of the Church during his time. And that is what is missing from the cited article by Tim Keller.



 

Why The Church?

The question posed by the title can bring a variety of answers depending on who is being asked. We know how many of us religiously conservative Christians would answer the question. We would refer to both the Scriptures and our respective confessions to talk about the Church in terms of the place where Christ is united with His people. The Church is there to tell us about our sins and how to be rescued from our sins by believing in Jesus. The Church is the bride of Christ. And thus the Church is to submit to Christ while Christ protects and provides for the Church.

But the above answer is what one would expect when asking a religiously conservative Christian that question. What if we were to ask private sector elites, such as those who wrote the report The Crisis Of Democracy for the Trilateral Commission (click here for a brief description), why the Church? Would we receive the same answer from them or from the recipients of their report that we would get when asking a religiously conservative Christian the same question?

Before answering the above question, we need to know what the Trilateral Commission is. It is a collection of private sector elites from the three major industrial areas of the world. These elites see a strong need for the leaders of these areas to work together as required by the growing interdependence between these areas. The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 and the report, The Crisis Of Democracy, was written in 1975. At that time, some of the future members of the Carter Administration were members of the Trilateral Commission that received this report. 

The purpose of this 1975 report was to comment on the troubles these three major industrial areas of the world saw during the 1960s. One summary that was given for the challenges which those in positions of authority faced during that time was an "excess of democracy." In that report, the purpose of the Church, as stated by these private sector elites, is below along with a little summary of the problems experienced then (click here for source):

In most of the Trilateral countries in the past decade there has been a decline in the confidence and trust which the people have in government, in their leaders, and, less clearly but most importantly, in each other. Authority has been challenged not only in government, but in trade unions, business enterprises, schools and universities, professional associations, churches, and civic groups. In the past, those institutions which have played the major role in the indoctrination of the young in their rights and obligations as members of society have been the family, the church, the school, and the army.

We should note that along with the family, the school and the army, the purpose of the Church was to act as another institution of indoctrination. The goal of the indoctrination was, and still is, toward teaching young people how to fit in as members of society. In addition, there is expressed a special concern with restoring the declining trust people had in their leaders, in those with authority.

Here we should note a bit of historical context for the lack of faith in those with authority during the 1960s. Our nation was beginning to emerge out of our shameful Jim Crow era. Women too felt the need to free themselves from some of society's shackles. In addition, our nation was fighting an unjust and immoral war in Vietnam and many of our kids were being forced, under the threat of law, to put their lives on the line in this war. For Blacks who were being drafted into the military, they were being told to fight for the freedoms of others which they could not enjoy at home because of the systemic racism that existed then.

So what makes up today's context? We live a way of life that is destroying the environment and the quality of life for our descendants. We live in a period of neoliberal capitalism where wealth disparity is growing between the rich and poor and, in our nation, between the races, and where economic growth is often the result of exploiting workers and/or the environment. We also see an increasing number of wars and a rapidly growing authoritarianism even in those nations that claim to be democracies. And we still see systemic racism in our nation as evidenced by the incarceration rates and even police shootings as well as by our nation's treatment of Native Americans such as those who are protesting the construction of the DAPL on their sacred land and across their source of water.

So the question is this: Is the purpose of today's Church to be merely another institution of indoctrination to get people to fit in and obey those in charge regardless of the troubles around us? Or is the Church acting as the Bride of Christ? From the Conservative perspective of the Church, we should note that the problems most often discussed by conservative Church leaders rarely, with the exception of racism from the past, address the large scale problems that the world faces today. 

The conservative Church has instead focused on the personal sins of the individual. All of that would be good news to those who wrote the report, The Crisis Of Democracy, as well as those who received it. For such would say that the Church is no longer straying from its purpose of indoctrinating the young on how to fit into society and how to obey those in authority.  However, that success on the Church front just might mean more suffering for the world and real failure by the Church. For the Church is there not just to warn the poor individual about his/her personal sins. The Church should also be there to warn everyone about their sins including states, societies and elites. The Church is charged with preaching against all sins as part of the Great Commission, but is that what we see the Church doing today?

So why the Church? What does our observation of the Church tell us?