When Good Theologicans Do Bad Things

 In the age of cancel culture where one mistake from the past can cause you to be silence before the public for an indefinite period of time, Trevin Wax (click here for a bio) asks whether prominent theologians should also suffer that fate. It is both a legitimate question to ask as well as a piece of damage control considering the theologians he mentions.

In an article posted on the The Gospel Coalition website (click here for the article ), Trevin asks how we should react to the significant sins committed by  Karl Barth, Jonathan Edwards, and Martin Luther. But more importantly, he also asks how those sins might have factored in the theologies of those men.

Karl Barth's sin that merits much public scrutiny was his long-time affair with one of his assistants. Wax goes on to say how Barth employed a torturous theological defense of his affair. Jonathan Edwards's sin was his defense of and participation in slavery. Though Edwards condemned the slave trade, he both defended slavery and owned slaves. Martin Luther is also included because of his later on in life, virulent anti-Semitism. Of course much of how Luther responded to those he disagreed with was virulent.

Before mentioning these sins, Wax starts off well by attacking the all-or-nothing approach that we can take towards famous theologians. For some have treated famous theologians, such as these three, as impeccable  authority figures while others have canceled theologians out at the first indication of human weakness or sinfulness. Wax then describes with some detail Barth's affair. Then he discusses the importance of the purity of heart that theologians should have and how one's own sin can affect one's own theology.

Wax then goes on to discuss 3 ways in which theologians, and, in fact, all Christians, could be participating in sin. They are open rebellion against God, practicing sin because one was blinded by their culture, and finally struggling against the sins one is committing. Of course, the third option should be chosen by all of us because we all have a particular set of sins that we struggle most with. However, Wax notes that while Barth's long-time adulterous affair puts his participation in that sin in the first category, he acknowledges that both Edwards and Luther were practicing their sins because of the effects that their own cultures had had on them. Luther grew up in Europe where anti-Semitism had a firm grip on the nations and societies there while, similarly, Edwards grew up and lived in a place and time where white supremacy reigned.

Wax then goes on to talk about the weaknesses of his model of thought here in that people can go from open rebellion to one who is struggling with a given sin.

Wax finishes his article by rightfully telling us that we should look into the details of each time a famous theologian participates in a serious sin. For those three theologians are not the only theologians who have given into a significant sin. We can think of John Calvin and how he had at least one heretic as well as multiple witches killed for their beliefs and/or practices, Or there J. Gresham Machen and his racism. Another that some unbelievers could mention was Billy Graham and his misguided political support for Richard Nixon despite Nixon's racism and anti-Semitism.

Wax finishes his article rightfully talking about the complexity of the human sinful condition. And throughout the article, Wax rightfully cautions us to not take an all-or-nothing approach to how we react to theologians who are involved with serious sins.

Some questions inadvertently come up from Wax's article. The first one is does being a famous theologian merit a hall pass for one's sin from the Church. In other words, would an ordinary believer be automatically excommunicated from the Church should they have practiced adultery as Barth had? Should we discount the faith of those Christians from the South who joined Edwards in defending slavery or those Christians who are anti-Semitic like Martin Luther was while we honor Edwards and Luther as believers?

Another question that could be asked is, are there other factors, besides one's personal sins, that can affect or even corrupt the theology of famous theologians? We might ask this about the writers of the confessions that our denominations cling to so passionately. Just to pick an example, was the theology of the Westminster Devines, those who wrote the Westminster Standards affected by the authoritarian culture that was so  prominent in England during their time? In other words, does it take the sinfulness of a theologian for us to step back and take a balanced view of their work and so otherwise put the theologies of others on too high a pedestal?

Another question we could ask here is, does the Gospel we believe allows for some believers to commit any sins they want because their faith has given them a get-out-of-eternal-jail card? And thus, can some of us live any way we want to as long as we know that our sins have been forgiven. The answer to that question is a complex 'no.'

Finally, we should go back to Wax's last paragraph and apply it to ourselves as well as to how we should look at the failings of other fellow Christians. That our human condition brings a complexity to how we should look at ourselves and others as being both believers and still being sinful. Our own sinful condition should curb any tendency to harshly condemn the sins of unbelievers too. Here it would be most important to remember what James said at the end of the second chapter of his epistle: 'Mercy triumphs over judgment.'

How Should We Christians Change The World Without Trying To Control It

Religiously conservative Christians in America are puzzled as to how they should engage the world of unbelievers that surround them. They, or I should say we, are puzzled because we have experienced a series of setbacks that point to how we use to engage the world. Much of our history of how to interact with the world has hurt credibility of the Gospel we rely on to live. And because our spiritual ancestors, and perhaps we ourselves, have so harmed the reputation of the Gospel by how they have interacted with culture, we find it more difficult to impact America today.

Church history is not very kind to us. Christianity held sway for most of the history of America and it has become associated with white supremacy, ethnic cleansing, racial bigotry, religious persecution, favoring the wealthy, ignoring the poor, supporting unjust wars, ignoring climate change, and persecuting the LGBT community. For what we are suppose to believe how we should act, religiously conservative Christianity has a relatively long rap sheet.

Quite recently, Trevin Wax (click here for a brief bio) just recently written an article on how we Christians should try to impact the world around us. Now because his article was posted on the Gospel Coalition website, it is an easy and short read. But that also means that it lacks some depth and perhaps, for brevity's sake, nuance. And yet it brings up issues that we need to consider.

In his article (click here for the article), Wax gives 3 suggestions for how we Christians can better and more faithfully impact our culture. At this point, a red flag has just shot up a flag pole. That is because there have been too many times that we have used a call to impact culture to try to control our culture. And when we do that, we invariably end up marginalizing some groups of people.

Another red flag rocketed up when before presenting his 3 suggestions, Wax made the following statement:

To put it another way, we cannot compartmentalize the Christian faith, as if following Jesus does not transform our perspective regarding the various spheres of life, including politics. Discipleship requires teaching on how best to speak the truth in a world of lies, to promote life in a culture of death, to lift up the goodness of the created order in a world full of people who negate the natural law and harm humanity through their errant and destructive understanding of human freedom and identity.

When Wax talks about not compartmentalizing, he is likely talking about not letting the context of an interaction adjust one's message. The truth he wants us to speak to the culture is based on the Christian understanding of natural law and is most likely thinking about what to say about LGBT issues. Here he is most probably thinking about Romans 1 where Paul describes homosexuality as being against nature.

But the problem with the nature argument, though it has merit as Paul uses it, is that we see same sex behavior in at least hundreds of species if not over 1,000 species. What becomes of the natural law argument then?

Wax's apparent motive then is to have Christians try to effectively speak to culture so that society follows Christian morals and values such as rejecting homosexuality as a normal sexual orientation. And that means that we return to a part of Church history where Christians have justified causing the oppression of a group. We should note here that while Paul's argument about homosexuality is valid, there is no indication that Paul or the other apostles were directing us to speak to culture so that the LGBT community would be punished by society by some degree of marginalization.  Speaking against homosexuality and other LGBT issues should only be reserved for evangelism and for speaking within the Church. That is because evangelism isn't about changing culture, it is about inviting people to believe in Jesus for the forgiveness of one's sins and thus to join the Church.

Next we should address Wax's first suggestion. That suggestion says that we should be on guard against political idolatry. Wax states that there are two ways by which we can make politics into a false god. The first way is to expect too much from our government. Though it is true that we can expect too much from our government, no guidance is given as to when that occurs.

The second way we can make politics into an idol is to unwittingly accept how a political ideology tends to deify some part of creation. And so the Christian must so influenced by the Scriptures that they can identify and challenge where an ideology is deifying a part of creation. 

Again, nothing is said to further explain what is meant there. But here, I think Wax misses a real opportunity to address how we can make politics into an idol based on how we regard a political ideology. I think he would have said things better if he, in his warning about political ideologies, told us not to regard any political ideology as being omniscient and thus not needing the input from any other ideology. One of the basic causes for the divisiveness we have in our nation is when we regard a given political ideology as being omniscient. Doing so cuts us off from others who hold to different ideologies and causes us to see them as threats.

So while missing an opportunity to make a better point, Wax gives a Tim Keller like view of political ideologies--Keller would say that all political ideologies are reductionistic by disregarding all concerns except for  1. My guess is that Wax makes the point that he does so that we Christians can stand in the position of correcting those who hold to their favorite political ideologies. But again, and if I am correct here, look at the position that Christians are putting themselves in by trying to impact culture. The Christian is to look down on the ignorant or unaware unbeliever as they hold to their favorite ideology. The Christian becomes the teacher of others, but never the student. And that kind of attitude hurts our witness for Christ.

Wax's next suggestion is actually very helpful and should, but does not, mitigate the problems that I think come with his first suggestion. That suggestion says that we are not to speak with any authority on issues on which we are not competent to speak. That seems to be a reversal from what I saw in his comment about political ideologies, but what it is saying, by the example he gave, we are not to try to propose solutions about issues and problems about which we don't know enough. Also, we should not expect our ministers to propose solutions to social, economic, or political problems when they lack the expertise in those subjects to do so.

But then Wax says something else under this suggestion that is prematurely causing Christians to anticipate being persecuted. He wrote: 'If it’s true that we are heading into a “negative world” in which the hostility toward Christian morality will increase.' Here, it is important to draw a distinction between hostility for believing something vs hostility for trying to impose or force your views on others. Christians face very little hostility for following their own convictions in how they live, But when Christians try to impose their values on others by promoting certain laws and policies or by trying to impact culture, some people will respond with hostility. Their hostility is not the result of the personal beliefs of another person. Their hostility is because we have been trying to force values on them in a society where they should be free from any social consequences of following their own ways. 

Here, we must distinguish between evangelizing others and trying to impact culture as Wax seems to be advocating. Evangelizing asks neither culture nor society to change, it asks the individual listener to change and become a member of the Church. From what I see, when we try to impact culture the way Wax seems to be advocating, we are showing hostility to the culture and society. Their rejection of our hostility becomes a provoked response. 

In areas of social justice, trying to impact culture and society by telling them what they must do to be just is appropriate. But where in the New Testament are we told to impact culture and society for personal moral behaviors that do not infringe on the rights of others?

Wax's 3rd suggestion is similar to what I wrote about political ideologies. Wax notes that we need all kinds of witnesses for Christ. My view of political ideologies, and this is despite, or perhaps because, I lean toward Marxism, is that since there are no political ideologies that are omniscient, we need to employ what is taught from other ideologies so that, in the end, our approach is more of a hybrid ideological approach to addressing issues and solving problems. Such hybrid approach helps prevent us from idolizing any political ideology.

In the end, what is disappointing about Wax's article is that he puts the Christian in the position of having to correct almost everything that the unbeliever would tell them about politics. Wax has the Christian standing in judgment over the unbelieving world. I don't believe that the New Testament tells Christians to put themselves in that position.

References

1. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/truthful-witness-public-square/
2. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/profile/trevin-wax/

Christianity And Today's America

 This Friday's review will review two people's work. That is because we are review and article by Trevin Wax (click here and there for info) which reviews a book by Jim Belcher (click here for info) on Christianity and rescuing America from its current plight. Belcher's book is called Cold Civil War: Overcoming Polarization, Discovering Unity, And Healing The Nation (click here for the book's link).

Belcher's book addresses a real problem with America. We are sharply divided. We are sharply divided because we have gone through some significant changes and not all are in favor of those changes. Those changes come from addressing longstanding  injustices being practiced against Blacks and Hispanics as well as against the LGBT community. And with the Obergefell decision  being acknowledged as the final nail in the coffin of past Christian dominance over culture and society, Christians have been at a loss in terms of how it should now relate to society. 

One of the first proposals that resulted from the Obergefell decision was described in Ron Dreher's book The Benedict Option: A Strategy For Christians In A Post Christian Nation.  Dreher's proposal was that Christians should somewhat retreat from society and circle the wagons in order to regroup and keep themselves unstained by the world. 

Belcher's proposal is a bit different, according to Wax's review (click here for Wax's article). Belcher wants Christian to take their faith and go out into America, rather than retreat from it, and use their faith to heal and unite the nation. To do that, American Christians must supplement their faith with a sound knowledge of natural law and social teaching. This is necessary, according to Belcher, for Christians to help America recover its covenant and to return America to the moorings provided by its founding fathers.

Belcher identifies the opponents of American Christians in this noble quest. They include those who see The Constitution as being purely secular, those who see America as being fatally flawed from the beginning, libertarianism, the alt-right, proponents of Critical Race Theory and open borders, and the ruling elites.

Belcher believes that Special Revelation, which is God's Word, provides the 'grounding' for general revelation, that which we learn from nature and observation,  Belcher believes that America needs to 'rebuild the culture' and restore civic responsibility along with getting legal immigrants to resemble the majority of Americans so that America's common heritage and traditions can live on.

Wax is sympathetic to Belcher's concerns and what he calls for. Wax appreciates Belcher's citing Catholic Social Teaching and his dependence on Tocqueville. We should note that Tocqueville's view of America was somewhat racist in his comparisons between Anglo white settlers and either Blacks from Africa or Native Americans. Tocqueville believed British society had accomplished a superiority over other European societies, especially the Spanish, in the new world. We should also note that quite a few Christians regard Tocqueville as a kind of secular Apostle who speaks authoritatively on what makes America tick. Regardless, Wax appreciates that Belcher interacts with people from different perspectives and tries to show what they hold to in common.

But Wax can't buy a significant part of what Belcher is advocating. The reason is, and it would be similar to what J. Gresham Machen would say if he were alive, he believes that Belcher is putting the Gospel in a 'supporting role' to accomplish another good. The temptation, for those who use the Gospel that way, is to critique the Gospel in terms of how it contributes to the establishing of some other good. Such would tempt us to change the contents of the Gospel to fit the purpose of this other good. Wax has a couple of other criticisms but that one is the most important one. Wax believes that Christians and the Gospel can play a role in helping America recover what it once lost, but that such would be an indirect benefit of the Gospel.

What both seem to miss is this. We religiously conservative American Christians are not the victims of the current state of ideological polarization in America, we are major contributors to it. Thus both Wax's and Belcher's, even more so, when calling America to Christianity, are calling on America to return to a partial state of oppression and injustices. It's not that either Belcher or Wax are advocating the repeating of  marginalizing Blacks and Native Americans, even though such marginalization was written into The Constitution that they are so enamored by. But they want to return to a state where Christianity had a significant control over the culture and society. And when Christianity had such control, certain groups were heavily marginalized.

And seeing how we religiously conservative Christians have diametrically opposed sexual morals that those held to by the LGBT community, what would happen to the advances made by and for the LGBT community should it be us religiously conservative Christians who spearheaded a more united nation? Can't we see that it is our reactions to these gains made by and for the LGBT community that play such a significant role in the polarization in America.

We might also ask if in getting the immigrants who are here to fit in by adopting American culture, whether they would be allowed to either make their own contributions to that culture that we would have to learn from or they would be allowed to maintain their culture as they are fitting in here.

But the biggest problem here is whether Belcher and Wax have recognized how we religiously Christians have contributed to the current Civil Cold War and the division and polarization in our nation by our strong reactions to the changes, many of them are attempts to undo social injustices, that have already taken place. And we have done that by already pursuing many of the paths that Belcher has been promoting. It isn't just the ruling elites who are dividing us. It is the old guard as it reacts to significant changes that bears most of the responsibility for the division and polarization that we live with.

The current state of America did not have become what it is now. We religiously conservative Christians could have responded favorably to the changes, especially most of the changes advocated by the LGBT community, without compromising our faith and standards. But we chose to resist those changes rather than to accept them. We chose to oppose multiculturalism rather than to embrace or even tolerate it. We religiously conservative Christians can never work for the healing of our nation until we acknowledge the major role we have played in dividing and injuring it.

A Warning That Is Too Little, Too Late

Trevin Wax (click here for a bio) has recently written a blogpost for his blog on the Gospel Coalition website which tries to warn religiously conservative Christians about the emergence of new and threatening conservative political ideologies that go against the Scriptures. He describes these ideologies as revolving around racism and a rejection of globalism. And that Christians must reject these new conservative ideologies just as they reject new "leftist" and have rejected political liberalism (click here for the article).

Wax's article provides a warning that is too little, too late. It is too little because Wax does not show his full capabilities in his examination oft either past political approaches or the present ones. He doesn't show his full capabilities as he reviews Machen's struggles with liberalism. And he doesn't show his full capabilities in offering specific criticisms of either the new left or new right politics that he sees as posing a danger to Christians.

But his warning also comes too late. For he speaks about an emerging white nationalism that has been tied closely to Christianity because this white nationalism rejects what is politically liberal. But such a new white nationalism doesn't exist. Why? It isn't because white nationalism doesn't exist. It is because white nationalism is as old as the colonization of North America. Our nation's founding fathers, as well as those from the next few generations that followed them, were, for the most part, white supremacists. Even some who opposed slavery and Honest Abe himself were white supremacists (click here).

We could fast forward to the days of the Civil Rights Movement. Quite often, signs held by whites who opposed the Movement associated the Movement and integration with Communism. Some in our government were all too eager to accuse Martin Luther King Jr. of being a Communist. It was conservatives who made these accusations and conservative denominations opposed the Civil Rights Movement. Some of those conservative denominations, like the PCA and SBC, apologized decades later for their support for Jim Crow and resistance to the Civil Rights Movement. And we should note that the racism that Martin Luther King Jr. battled existed throughout the nation. He observed as much racism in the North as he did in the South. The racism was often exhibited in different ways, but it was there. So it should become clear that white nationalism is a bit older thanWax seems to give it credit for.

My own experience growing up in a religiously conservative Christian home in the Northeast saw such a subtle but clear association between political conservatism and white nationalism. The difference between then and now is that the term white nationalism, was not used in public like it is today.

So Wax's warning came too late for families like the one I grew up in. Of course, that is not Wax's fault, but it is the fault of his theological predecessors. And that starts with J. Gresham Machen.

There is no doubt that Machen contributed significantly to our ability to distinguish theological liberalism and theological conservatism. But the baggage that came with the distinctions caused the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater when it came to his reaction to liberalism. That is, not just theological liberalism was tossed aside by Machen's reaction to his denomination's rejection of him, much, if not all, of political liberalism was thrown away to because of the name of 'liberal' or 'liberalism.' In short Machen, like many who possess authoritarian personality types, embraced a black-white kind of thinking that prevented them from making distinctions between theological and political liberalism and from valid politically liberal positions from invalid ones. Thus, both theological and political liberalism was rejected by Machen and, from that, the roots of today's ties between conservative Christianity and conservative politics were planted.

We should note in Wax's article that it is appropriate to accept some forms of political conservatism. But he seems to say that all of political liberalism is viewed as a threat that must be rejected by today's religiously conservative Christians. And this is despite the fact that the Civil Rights Movement was not well supported by political conservatism.

There is one other problem with Wax's approach. Wax, he is a Christian transformationalist. And like other such transformationalists, he believes that Christians are called to change the culture. That Christians are expected to interject their values into society in order to Christianize them, in a sense. Such makes evangelism easier and helps humanity better able to flourish. But such an approach implies how we should share with others. For the transformationalist approach assumes that Christians should seek a privileged place in society in order to better interject, or force, Christian values onto society. This is to be done not just for the sake of evangelism, but out of a call for stewardship. For whatever reason, what is implied by transformationalism is a place of supremacy over society for Christianity so it can better influence society and help human life flourish under the best conditions.

But seeking that privileged place in society immediately rubs against the grain of those unbelievers who are woke. They are woke because they have seen, in history, other attempts by Christians to do the same. And those  attempts had very ugly sides to them. Though certainly the Church should play the role of a prophet in calling out the corporate sins of the state and society. To avoid seeking a place of supremacy in society, we religiously conservative Christians need to collaborate with our unbelieving fellow citizens as equals so as to forge a more just society. We cannot do such collaboration while seeking supremacy over others.

What follows from how we share society with others should be obvious. If we Christians seek some place of supremacy over others in society, we will be more inclined to be insular in what we observe and read about society. That is because our need for supremacy implies that we have a more pure view of people and politics and that view can be more easily contaminated when collaborating with unbelievers. If we share society with others as equals, then we will more readily recognize that not only do we have much to contribute to society, but that we have much to learn from others as well and that unbelievers have much to contribute to both society and ourselves.



 

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 8, 2017

February 1

To Kevin DeYoung, Collin Hansen, and Trevin Wax and their blogpost that plays a recording of their discussion on when we should use the law to legislate Christian morality. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

What I see is missing from the discussion is a good definition of democracy and our place as Christians in society. Democracy has sometimes been reduced to its political mechanisms, which is what I think was done in this discussion. However, the literal definition of democracy is that the people rule. And there are certain egalitarian overtones in that statement so that when a subset of people seize power, even if its by using democratic mechanisms, and rule over all other groups of people, we don't have the people ruling, we have a subset of people ruling and thus we don't have a democracy. Jeff Halper, an Israeli activist and founder of the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions, has provided this helpful distinction between what is called democracy and what he called an ethnocracy when the subset of people who seize power belong to some kind of ethnic classification in a diverse society (see page 74 of his book An Israeli In Palestine).

Second, when examining our role in society, the question we most often fail to ask is this: How will we Christians share society with others? Will we share society as those who seek to have privileges and thus control over all other groups or will we share society as equals? If we share as the first group, then aren't we flying in the face of both Democracy and Jesus's warning not to 'lord it over' others?

Third, there is a problem with prohibiting same-sex marriage based on natural law and/or the belief that marital law should revolve around supporting what is best for human flourishing. Regarding natural law, we should note that homosexuality exists in 1,500 species and its existence is beneficial to the species. Regarding what is best for human flourishing, should the law only allow what is deemed best or can it allow for all other options that do not violate the rights of or harm others?

Finally, the statements made about how Christianity was not the only frame of reference for prohibiting same-sex marriage was rather shallow. For one thing, the thinking of some Christian churches regarding same-sex relationships and marriage has changed. Also, there have been societies that have allowed same-sex marriage and other same-sex living relationships. In addition, the history of Western Civilization has been up until recently dominated by what would be considered today as conservative forms of Christianity. And that Judaism and Islam also prohibit same-sex marriages does not imply that we don't have freedom of religion issues in prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Yes, laws are there to protect us and that can help change us. But when one group gains control of the government to force its way of life on a diverse society, then laws can become oppressive on various levels to those who do not belong to the group that is in control. And if we Christians are that group, then again what we are doing is flying in the face of both Democracy and Jesus's prohibition not to be like the Gentiles who like to 'lord it over' others. We also unnecessarily provide stumbling blocks to the hearing of the Gospel for many a nonChristian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To David Platt and his blogpost on how we should respond to the Refugee Crisis. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Regarding the exhortation to act justly, does that imply that we should demand that our government cease from all actions that further injustice and cause more and more people to become refugees? After all, we are not living in the Roman Empire that Apostles lived in; we live in a Democracy where we have the right and responsibility to tell our government what to do.

BTW, one more point should be made. Both the Syrians and the Jordanians demonstrated some of the greatest generosity ever seen by how they took in Iraqi refugees who felt they had to flee their nation because of the US invasion. How is it that we who believe in the Gospel and live in the richest nation in the world should  show less generosity and compassion than what the Syrians have already shown others?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 2

To Joe Carter and his blogpost interview with Matthew Soerens as they talk about Trump’s Refugee policy. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.

There are some good points made in this article. However, like immigration policies, there is one missing factor in Trump's latest EO that is a part of our refugee policies. That missing factor are US policies that create refugees. We should remember, or research, that many refugees were created by the US invasion of Iraq. The people of Jordan and Syria, nations that do not have our economic resources, put Americans to shame in how they helped Iraqi refugees during this time.

We should note that most of the nations in the ban are nations that have been attacked by the US--some of them saw the US overthrow their governments. And now, having created or significantly contributed to the refugee problem, we are closing our doors to these refugees to protect ourselves, we display a dangerous, that is dangerous to both ourselves and the world, lack of awareness regarding our actions, especially in how we use our military.

If we want to limit the number of refugees coming into the US, then we must adjust your policies so that we are not creating refugees.

-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 3

To Dwight Longenecker and his blogpost that claims that the “left” and media response to Trumps ban is over the top. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

It is true that the more bullets nonconservatives fire at Trump, the more support they instigate for him. Such is the nature of political tribalism in our nation. However, the hysteria about immigration and refugee policies belongs with the Trump Administration and those supporting the ban. To say that a ban on predominantly Muslim countries is not a Muslim ban is premature. To say that the ban targets potential terrorists overlooks details. The only Muslim terrorists who have attacked America on American soil are those who come from nations not included in the ban. In addition, since 1980, around 3 million refugees have been admitted to the US and none of them have conducted any acts of terrorism (see https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-should-christians-think-about-trumps-refugee-policy ). The frenzied rush of support for the ban also ignores the vetting process in terms of who does the vetting and how long the vetting process takes place.

Also, I have not seen religiously conservative Christians or other supporters of Trump propose that we tie foreign policies to immigration and refugee policies. We should note that for the majority of the nations on the ban, they have suffered attacks by the US military and/or been targeted for regime change by our government. The instability caused by these actions is a major reason why we have as many refugees in the world as we have. And it is more than just a cruel joke to both pursue foreign policies that significantly increases the number of refugees while reducing the number of refugees who are allowed to enter our nation.

Finally, why not ban all immigrants and refugees from Israel and allowing exceptions for persecuted religious minorities while insisting that such a ban is not a Jewish ban? Trump's ban is not a Muslim ban? How can we say that such a statement comes from hysteria when part of Trump's campaign included a promise to institute a Muslim ban along with the lack of need for a ban while Trump institutes kind of the ban that he has?Also, Hillary is no leftist; she is a liberal Democrat. As such, she supports capitalism, Leftists are anti-capitalists.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 7

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on why Christians should support school vouchers. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Here is the problem with supporting school vouchers. Some schools are already underfunded, vouchers will add to that problem. As public schools get less revenue, they will perform more poorly and the system will collapse. And there will be no schools that will be able to take up the slack because for profit charter schools will not have the resources to provide for the demand should public schools collapse.

It seems that the conservative approach to eliminating government programs, such as education, is to under fund them so that they will under perform. In the end, what eliminating federal programs does is to free businesses from having to meet their social responsibilities since businesses, especially successful ones, are the primary benefactors of these programs. It is all done in the name of maximizing profits. The Scriptures refer to that ethic as the love of money. And the Scriptures are quite clear in declaring that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And history is quite clear in pointing out that when the Church sides with wealth, it often sides with tyranny.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blocs For November 2, 2016

Oct 28

To Joe Carter and his blogpost that proposes that conservatives could control the Supreme Court through a Democratic administration by having Congress change the size of the Supreme Court. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition.

Considering that the criteria conservatives use to determine whether a judge is an activist judge depends on whether they agree with any judgment made by that judge, this argument of controlling SCOTUS by lowering the number justices is rather petty.

We simply don't understand what is involved in changing the nation from being pro-choice to being pro-life. We don't understand because not enough people are consistently pro-life. Thus, the actual pro-life base is not big enough to establish and win arguments where those arguments are most important: in the street.

When abortion was illegal, its status changed because of the number of ordinary people who still sought abortions. And since our prisons are already overcrowded and the number of doctors to provide healthcare is marginal, changing the law to criminalize abortion at this point in time can bring damaging unwanted consequences as well as could be unproductive to the pro-life cause. And considering the damage that is already caused by pro-life advocates excusing our exploitive economic system, our deadly foreign polices, and our way of life that continues to damage the environment, we need to find ways that bolster pro-life credentials before we depend on changes in the law.

In addition, this proposal of changing the size of the Supreme Court is such a temporary fix that it risks making the size of the Supreme Court a kind of ping pong issue which could constantly be changed with each changing of the guard in Congress.

Any real pro-life victory in our nation must be a comprehensive one, not a piecemeal one. And the biggest obstacle we have to the pro-life cause is not in the courts but in the streets. Thus, this proposal of changing the size of the Supreme Court is really inadequate and lacks vision.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 29

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on how free trade reduces poverty. This appeared in the Acton blog.

It is tiring to keep pointing out that those who support free trade do so by filtering the evidence and the points they make. This is what our "free trade" has brought. The offshoring of jobs where trade is conducted without concern for labor conditions elsewhere and thus it supports the exploitation of workers  and others in other nations (see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/business/worldbusiness/05sweatshop.html) for the sake of business profits. BtW, we should note that rescuing people from abject poverty does not imply that one is rescued from poverty.

We should note that what free trade does is to remove government controls on trade. When a government is a working democracy, then what free trade accomplishes is to remove democratic controls on trade. Finally we should note that many nations have built their own industries using protectionists measures. We might ask here whether free trade prevents nations from building their own industries and thus ensures a caste system for nations that embrace free trade.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 30

To Joe Carter and his blogpost about why some do not trust authority. This appeared in the Acton blog.

It seems to me that the fear of authority is not highly tied to the personal feeling of being judged, but it is caused by the abuse of power those with authority sometimes execute. This is especially true when it comes to the police. From the news stories I've seen, some groups of people are reluctant to call the police in an emergency because doing so before has led to the deaths of innocent people. For others, the police have meant the arrest of innocent friends and family members while for others it has led to racial profiling.

What is surprising is that race plays a role in many areas regarding how authority is perceived, but there is no mention of race as being a possible contributing factor for how authority is received.

In the meantime, perhaps the purpose of this article can best be described by the following quote from the report The Crisis Of Democracy:

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.





---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This comment is currently awaiting moderation. This blogpost will be updated once the results of that moderation are known to this blog.

Update--though being listed as being posted Oct 31, the comment below was not posted until sometime later after November 2.

Oct 31

To Trevin Wax and his blogpost about 3 truths we need to remember when voting. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

If only the 3 truths mentioned above were more evident in practice than just in theory. What we have seen, at least through my lifetime and I was born when Eisenhower was President, is that the Church, at least the conservative American Church, is yes political, but is not one that speaks truth to power nor is it on the front lines helping the vulnerable. Rather, the following description from the report The Crisis Of Democracy best describes the conservative American Church that both I have grown up in and still live.

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. The effectiveness of all these institutions as a means of socialization has declined severely.


Please note that these comments were made after what the report called the 'excess of democracy' from the 1960s. And we should note the some of the civilizing effects of that excess of democracy included the beginning of racial justice, equality, and reconciliation as well as examination of US foreign policies and wars.

Where was the conservative Church during Martin Luther King's protests against racism, economic exploitation, and the Vietnam War? In fact, where was it during the 1970s? We know where it was during the 1980s; it was supporting Ronald Reagan whose administration supported contra terrorists in Nicaragua and the military and paramilitaries of El Salvador where a war against priest advocating liberation theology was being conducted.  In addition, the fruit of Reagan's anti-union/pro-business stand can be seen in the still ever increasing wealth disparity we see in America today.

And where has the conservative Church been regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the sanction years on Iraq hundreds of thousands of children died or Bush's invasion of Iraq? Where is the conservative Church standing regarding police accountability and Black Lives Matter? Where is the conservative American Church standing regarding environmental issues and is it defending the Standing Rock Sioux in their protest against the DAPL? Has the conservative American Church said anything about neoliberal capitalism or is it blindly supporting free markets and free trade without considering how those approaches affect all of Capitalism's stakeholders?

And where has the conservative American Church stood in protecting the equality of those from the LGBT community?

The three truths mentioned above, from what I've seen, are more present in theory than in practice.

BTW, there should be at least one point of correction. At Occupy Wall Street, we practiced a form of anarchism to a certain degree. But that does not even suggest that we had no order. The idea behind anarchism is not that there is no order, the idea is that because all are counted as leaders, there is no single leader or group of leaders. In other words, with anarchism, leadership and power are distributed as widely as possible rather than consolidating it as is practiced in other systems. This is not to say that anarchism is always the best form of self-governing. It is to say that we should represent it accurately. What I saw in Occupy's implementation of anarchism were rules and order that everyone could consent to.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Rosaria Butterfield and her blogpost response to Jen Hatmaker about how homosexual relationships are unbiblical and thus sin in contras to Hatmaker's view. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

If I understand the article correctly, in terms of sexual ethics, we must promote and even push for laws that enforce Biblical sexual ethics for nonChristians in society. However, we don't do that for unbliblical heterosexual marriages. And we don't legally prohibit nonChristians from worshiping idols and false gods? So why should we support and even push for laws that prohibit same-sex marriages?

Could it be that our intolerance for same-sex marriage (SSM) in society is just one way by which we are failing to love those in the LGBT community? After all, supporting SSM doesn't prohibit one from seeing it as sin, nor does it prohibit one from sharing what the Bible says about SSM. But legally prohibiting SSM does not recognize the equality of those from the LGBT community with us in society. What is it that Paul says in I Corinthians 5:12-13?

We need to see the differences that exist between being a person in good standing in society from being a person in good standing in the Church. When we confuse those two standards, we make society a supplemental disciplinary arm of the Church just as Martin Luther tried to do when he wanted German society and princes to punish the Jews for their unbelief. How is it that we can love our LGBT neighbor while wanting society to punish and marginalize them for their sexual orientation and identity? Yes, sex outside of a monogamous heterosexual relationship is sin. But does that imply that society must punish that behavior? If so, what other unbiblical behaviors must society punish? Should we eliminate freedom of religion from The Constitution?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost quote of Rosaria Butterfield who called Jen Hatmaker’s words justifying homosexuality a ‘well-meant millstone’. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Is there more than one well-meant millstone here? For example, were laws that prohibited SSM and the current lack of legal protection for those in the LGBT community at work which exists in the majority of our states millstones to people like Jen so that the only choice they see is to either justify what is clearly sin or to continue marginalizing those in the LGBT community?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 7, 2015

Oct 1
To Trevin Wax and his blogpost stating that the war waged by our fleshly desires against our souls is  a more important battle than the current culture war. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition Website


In one sense, I agree with the article though not for the same reasons as the author did. The war on our souls is a more important battle than the culture war because, IMO, the current culture war is our fault. There would be no culture war if none of the sides involved sought to dominate the others. But that is exactly what we tried to do. To create a society in the image of the ideals of religiously conservative, American Christians, we sought a privileged position in in society in order to control the behaviors of others. The establishment of  privileged position has caused a pendulum swing and we are, perhaps, witnessing that swing going in the opposite direction.

But we should note that there is a dualism that I don't think is Biblical to magnify the internal and individual struggles we have with sin over the external and corporate struggles. We sin as individuals and in groups. The root cause for both is sin. But too many times, it is only the internal struggles against sin that  deemed as being worthy of our attention. Our complicity in the corporate sins of the society or the state are given a hall pass. And yet those sins include violating the commandments prohibiting murder and theft.

--------------

Oct 4

To R. Scott Clark and his Heidelblog quote on how the Law of Moses is an example of natural law. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Such brings up a dilemma. On the one hand we declare that the Law's, which was the Law of Moses, first purpose is to show us our sin. On the other hand, some religiously Conservative Christians believe that the civil authorities have a responsibility for enforcing natural law. What the follows the conjunction of these two statements is the incarceration of all.


---------------

Oct 6

To Joe Carter and his comparison between "soviet-style" food banks vs a free market approach to running food banks. This appeared in the Acton blog.

A couple of problems exist in this article. First, the alleged soviet-style of food banks was never verified by being described. Second, what is described as a free market system is more of a lottery system than a free market system.

But perhaps the biggest problem with this article is that it doesn't address the subject of what kind of market produced the need for food banks in the first place.

What Responses To Ferguson Can Reveal

Quite often, how people really feel about the status quo can be seen in how they react to a crisis. For those who are content with the status quo, the problems that stem from any crisis are always someone else's fault, for it cannot be the fault of the current systems that maintain the status quo. There are some who are discontent with the status quo but who act and think as if it were a natural disaster or a fixed cost rather than being a social problem--we should note that a social problem, by definition, must be problem about which we can do something. People from either group will then respond to the crisis by stressing individual responsibility. Of course, there are other responses made by those who are not happy with the status quo.  These people will either exclusively blame the systems for people's problems or they will see the status quo as a contributor to the struggles people have.

It is with all of that in mind that this blog will review some blogposts about Ferguson and racism posted in the Gospel Coalition website. These blogposts appeared in the Gospel Coalition website. The guest articles were written by Benjamin Watson (click here for his article) and Voddie Baucham (click there for his article) as they gave their responses to what occurred in Ferguson.  

Both men downplay external systemic factors only in different ways. Baucham acknowledges systemic problems plaguing the Black community but these problems are, according to him, within the community itself. Baucham especially wants to avoid giving any credibility to a Marxian 'White privilege' explanation for what has happened to the Black community. 'fatherlessness' and 'immorality' are root causes for what plagues Blacks. In addition, he does not see racism against Blacks allegedly practiced by police as being a problem. Rather, citing the disparity between the number of Blacks killed by Blacks vs the number of Blacks killed by the police, he believes that the Blacks have far more to fear from fellow Blacks than from the police. He gives personal experiences, though, of what Blacks do suffer from. And yet, he attributes all of this to personal sin and gives no credit to unjust, external systems.

Watson also emphasizes individual responsibility over problems caused by external systems, but he does so in a different way. First, Watson is deeply troubled by generations of injustice as well as some of the response such as rioting and looting. He's worried about an us vs them attitude and the prejudice it can produce, he's frustrated over the lack of change and yet thinks things are better now than before.  And he is confused over why it is so hard to do what the police say. Here, we might want to remind Watson of the history of the struggle for Civil Rights.

But most telling is where he finds his hope. His hope is in the Gospel because the root problem is due to sin--that is individual sin. Though, unlike Baucham, he doesn't write off the systemic racism, he still sees the solution solely in terms of changing individuals through preaching the Gospel. And in so thinking, he joins Baucham in affirming the status quo. Only here, the status quo isn't state of being that Blacks have in our society, it is in the current systems that maintain everyone's state of being. 

So what we have is a, though not the only, typical Conservative Christian response. That response says that we only need to work on individuals by preaching the Gospel and thus we leave the systems on which the status quo rests alone. This is why preaching the Gospel is seen as the only solution. Of course, Christians who believe this have their counterparts, especially on the Left, who believe that all we need to do is to change the systems, there is more than one system, that maintain the status quo and we can eliminate injustice. What both sides have in common is that they think in all-or-nothing terms which leads to making exclusive-or choices between converting individuals and changing the systems. And thus, trying both approaches is impossible because they are seen as being antithetical.

Now this exclusive-or approach isn't taken by all Christians nor of all who post on the Gospel Coalition. Trevin Wax challenged Baucham's dismissal of White Privilege as a cause for racial problems (click here) as he should. For one of Baucham's key mistakes is that he fails to look behind the curtain of Black fatherlessness and immorality. He doesn't consider whether political, economic, and other systems contribute to Black fatherlessness and immorality. And here, shouldn't we challenge Baucham for suggesting that Blacks have a greater problem with immorality than Whites? 

Justin Taylor just wrote a blogpost quoting Martin Luther King on the need to change legislation in order to curb racism (click here). And though he and Wax are presenting different approaches than Baucham and Watson, we would be making the same exclusive-or thinking mistake as Baucham and Watson made have if we replaced what Baucham and Watson wrote with just the corrections which Wax and Taylor suggested. That is because there is no need to think in exclusive-or terms here. Yes, we need to preach the Gospel and convert individuals. Here, we should note that there are other messages besides the Gospel which promote racial equality. And yes, we also need to change the systems that maintain the status quo. And there is no reason not to do both unless one is seeking control for one's own group. That is when Christians say that the only solution to a significant social problem is to have everybody believe the Gospel, they are in effect saying that Christianity should rule society for it to have any hope. Such people have an inadequate knowledge of our history. The same goes for those who believe that if society would only employ the systems they are advocating, our problems would be solved. 

We should note one final problem in our attempts to solve our society's problem with continued systemic racism. That problem is that though there were political advances made in terms of gaining equal rights for minorities, wealth disparity either remains unchanged or it grew. And anyone who knows anything about politics will tell you that power follows wealth and thus the failure to change the wealth disparity problem might be, or is in reality, a significant contributing factor to our society's failure to overcome racism. 

Though the Conservative Christian Church will sometimes address racism and try to work to change the political system to advance equality, it has utterly failed to address an economic system that is based on the love of money and contributes to our ongoing problem with racism. As I remember Noam Chomsky stating in a DVD I have that while King went after racism, he was applauded; but he was denounced when he worked for economic justice and opposed the Vietnam War and militarism. So at best, the Conservative Christian Church has followed what gained King applause and has avoided to do what caused him criticism. 

Thus, our current economic system, which plays just as big a role in maintaining racism as any unjust political system could, has been treated either as a sacred cow or a fixed cost. And so there is no prophetic word challenging our economic system coming from the Conservative Christian Church. Thus, we can only conclude that it is content with that part of our society. And this is what we see in all of the writers cited here.