Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For April 2, 2014

Around March 21

To Dylan Pahman's blogpost on Christian Orthodoxy and partisan politics. This was posted on the Acton blog.


I fully agree with the following statement:

He only highlights that in applying the teachings of the Church to our present, political context, we ought not to expect any concrete embodiment of our ideals, and we should be wary of any person or group that makes such a claim.

However, that statement does not imply that we should be shy in noting the discrepancies between the teachings of the Scriptures and the concrete policies and actions of the parties and ideologies that are out there. And there is a difference there. As a religiously conservative Christian, it wouldn't be right of me to declare any party and ideology as being the party the truly represents the Gospel. However, I should be able to use the Gospel to find the flaws of every political party and ideology. And the rejection of any party or ideology can be seen as an endorsement of another party or ideology when I am placed in the position of having to choose one of only two options where which party or ideology I end up supporting depends on which policies or positions I am focusing on. For example, too many Conservative Christians have aligned themselves with the Republican party because they have focussed so much on the abortion issue that they have neglected other issues.

What helps us avoid aligning the Church and Gospel with any particular political party or ideology is to use the Scriptures to criticize all political parties and ideologies and to know enough to realize that there are more than 2 options to choose from.

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

March 22

To Joe Carter's blogpost on if companies can be African American, why can't they be religious. This appeared on the Acton blog.


First, there are Christian companies. Many of them publish materials and sell books and other things while there might be a few hospitals.

But there seems to be a potential comparison of apples and oranges here. For in the example above, what is being questioned is whether a business was denied the opportunity to provide services. What is being asked for with Christian businesses is what rights can they deny others either in employee benefits or in refusing services. I have great understanding in not wanting to pay for healthcare that includes abortion. I have some understanding in Christian businesses not wanting offer services to same-sex weddings. But we have to understand that these are not the issues Black businesses are dealing with.

So if we want to compare apples to apples, we would be discussing discrimination against Christian companies that are being denied the opportunity to provide services, not the right to deny them. 

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

March 23

To R. Scott Clark's blogpost on Science and the audio broadcast linked to in the blogpost. The audio calls the current climate scientists who warn about environmental problems because of our greenhouse emissions a cult. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Remember Luther's and Calvin's geocentricity. Machen's view of how the Scriptures talked about what appeared to be the case meant nothing to the Christians in the days of Calvin and Luther. That scientists back then had it right while our most esteemed theologians had it wrong should cause us to approach all other discrepancies between scientists and our spiritual leaders with an open mind. And calling the large body of climate scientists who can easily point to indisputable physical changes in our environment a cult because of both their agreement and that their methodology was different from other scientific studies is irresponsible.

Climate scientist are considering multiple models for the future so what this says is that that they don't know the ramifications of our path. But, again, they can easily point to current changes and denying those current changes would indicate that one is submitting to a cult more than whatever faults you can find in the climate scientists.

So with regard to the climate scientists, perhaps the lack of tolerance of has to do with the available evidence as well as what is being risked. To do nothing, in light of the observable evidence  and not the conclusions or interpretations, is to at least flirt with disaster. And why studies contains a blind or double blind models depends on the studies themselves. One cannot enforce a single model on all studies.

Finally, if you want to say that the hiding or blocking of data indicates shenanigans, then we must question this blog because of the comments challenging what has been claimed about socialism and climate science which have been blocked from appearing here. And that has occurred multiple times. 

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

March 24



To Elise Hilton and her blogpost on the Koch brothers and the good they have done. This appeared on the Acton blog.

Such posts as the one above one is meant to silence criticism. For its says that if you don't like how they make their wealth, then forfeit what they do that is good. The problem is that they are in the position to contribute possibly because of wrongs they have committed and if we accept that tradeoff, we have given up basic morality for utilitarianism. In addition, to not hold them accountable is to sacrifice democracy for paternalism. And remember that paternalism thrives on power and praise.



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

March 25

To Joe Carter's Blogpost on providing a Common Grace apologetic for Disgust. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition blog.

What people find to be disgusting varies so that just because someone is ok with what I find to be disgusting doesn't imply that they believe in a world where everything goes. The burning of the bodies of aborted babies is probably disgusting to more people than abortion is itself. And that brings up an interesting inconsistency that we should explore. And generalizing from that specific application, it is easy to find how the above post can equip us in challenging culture but that wasn't the only point of this post. 

Another point was to challenge Christians who sabotage the emotion of disgust by criticizing fellow Christians for "implying any sinful behavior can be disgusting." 

Whether what someone does is disgusting to us is related to several factors. And one of those factors is practicality while another is identification. What are the effects of being disgusted by every sin practiced by others? Can one really function in society while being that sensitive? Will such an emotion cause us to be intolerantly intolerant of others? 

Or perhaps our disgust is because we indulge in or want to practice the same sins that disgusts us and our expressed emotion distracts attention from us? And are we afraid that we will slide down the slippery slope of sin if we fail to react? And there are many other questions we can ask. 

Now if the effects of rampant individualism is another significant concern here, then we should look for accepted cultural practices and sacred cows that might be promoting such individualism. And, based on what Karl Marx and Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, one such culturally embraced practice that affects our moral values is the free market. For in the free market, our strength and our conscience is self-interest. We are told that in the free market, self-interest is what both drives and guides us. That concern for others is not necessary and may even frowned on frowned on at times when working in or determining the rules for the free market.

We certainly cannot reduce all of the current radical individualism that is causing our society to self-destruct to the free market. But we have to admit that with the rewards to be found there, the free market possibly encourages more individualism than is healthy for a society.

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

March 26

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on a new dark age where a video of some interviews showed that many people are very ignorant of what is going on. This appeared on the Heidelblog

Looks like another version of Jay-Walking where Jay Leno would ask people on the street very basic questions that most of the people asked could not answer. And I think Geoff Willour's note summed up much of what is wrong. But many points being made here have also been made by those on the Left and in particular by Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges. And this is an important point because though they often have different solutions, those on the Right and Left sometimes share concerns and even if we hold to our positions, talking about those concerns can be beneficial.   I encountered this my self as I spoke to fellow Christians who were protesting the last May Day event in NYC in which I participated.

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

To Chris Castaldo's blogpost on the importance of Church unity. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition blog. 

Individualism is not the only cause for a fractured Church unity, compromising to cultural values and syncretism is also another cause. The latter is a hammering in of a square peg into a round hole with the square peg being acceptable cultural values like nationalism or materialism while the round hole is Christianity. Certainly the square peg can be hammered in if it is hit hard and often enough, but such does violence to the round hole.

It isn't just individualism that separates us. During and before the Civil War, the slavery issue divided the Church. After the Civil War, Jim Crow segregation vs Civil Rights divided the Church. There are cultural compromises that divide us today. So how should we react today's compromises? That might be best determined on an individual  cultural value basis.

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

To Joe Carter's blogpost on Crony Capitalisms favorite trick of hiding behind the writing of regulations. This appeared in the Acton blog

Just as some apologists for American Capitalism have declared that socialist movements are always hijacked by would be and actual tyrants, we can make the same statement about crony capitalism. At what point in American history has Capitalism not sunk its claws into the government for favorable treatment? After all, businesses are structured to be tyrannical and thus what keeps that cultural mindset from trying to control the government for the sake of profit? Certainly there have been times of gov't pushback but isn't battling cronyism an ever constant battle. 

There is no doubt that today's neoliberal capitalism is rife with cronyism but what about the whole 20th century and business's used of the American military? Former Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler wrote about how he and other troops were really fighting battles for corporations and banks and that was prior to WWII (see here, and there ). Or we could go to our state capitalism and our 50+ wars and interventions that occurred after WWII. Many of these wars and interventions revolved around business interests and benefits such as Iran in '53, Guatemala in '54, Chile in '73 Haiti in the late 80s and early 90s (see here). Even the latest wars in Iraq and Afganistan had business overtones. We could also look to the red missile scare in the 50s and/or 60s where we were told that we had to build up our nuclear arsenal to match a Russian threat that wasn't there. Who was the beneficiary and about whom did Eisenhower warn the country?

Many of today's examples of crony capitalism can be found in comparisons. Compare the criminal prosecution practices against lower class minorities vs those against those who commit white-colar crime such as bank executives when their institution has been fined for illegal activities. And besides war, consider the purchase and use of military type equipment for local police forces and compare that with the crime in the community (see here). Or compare the interest rates that our gov't gives our financial institutions when they are in a fix with the interest rates they charge customers.

When has Capitalism not corrupted by cronyism ever existed in this country and how long did it last? Perhaps Capitalism doesn't exist without it either in terms of determining the rules and laws or in terms of providing life sustaining business for many of our corporations. 

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

March 28

To Bruce Edward Walker's blogpost on Trillium's wrongful alliance with Bill McKibbon. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Actually, Mckibbon isn't the first person who said that Americans put too much priority on their possessions. In fact, a person who said decades before him may not have been the first either. That person was Martin Luther King. Consider the following two quotes:

When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered 

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom. 

Even Karl Marx foresaw how an economy based on self-interest would change our values sot that in all of our relationships, we are first asking, what am I getting out of this?

Thus, the self-flattering claims that the National Review makes about the source of meaning for Americans being from faith can be challenged by observation, according to what King preached.

Finally, we should note that much of this article pushes only reality, the costs of switching from fossil fuel to renewable energies. Other realities ignored here are the environmental destruction and devastation to residents that is occurring by some of our resource extracting methods as well as what could become irreversible and severe damage to our environment if we continue with our current use of fossil fuels. 

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

March 30

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on Rauschenbush and the Social Gospel and social sins. This was posted in Heidelblog

Let's look at social sins from another perspective. When allied troops liberated the people in one of the Nazi camps, they were ordered by General Eisenhower to make the citizens of a nearby town tour the camp to see what they were responsible for. Yes, they were responsible. This is something Tim Keller talked about when he was talking about corporate sin (forward ahead to around the 26:13 mark of this link). He eventually talks about the different degrees of guilt German citizens were accountable for, even those Germans who did not participate but did not make any effort to find out what was happening. See, it isn't just liberal protestants who are recognizing social sins.

There are two errors we can make when interacting with the Social Gospel. The liberal error is to reduce the Gospel to social justice and helping those in need. The conservative error is to filter out our responsibility to work for social justice. 

All too often, the conservative Christian response to social injustice is to equip the victims to persevere through their trials by teaching them how to become spiritual spartans. Too often we feel that we only need to teach people to hold on to their faith so they can persevere through their trials. And as important as that is, we are missing another important responsibility.

That responsibility is preaching repentance and the gospel to the perpetrators and complicit supporters of social sins. Social sins are sins started by those with wealth and/or power by how they mold society and use social peer pressure to gain the obedience of others so that society is practicing the sins as a whole. Especially since Western societies have a Christian tradition, it is the Gospel that becomes associated with social sins. So now we have at least two reasons to preach against Social sins in Western civilization. It is to call those with wealth and power to repent and to protect the reputation of the Gospel.

Is The Social Gospel Biblical Enough For Conservative Christians?

Is the Social Gospel biblical enough for Conservative Christians, especially American Conservative Christians? We should note that not all Conservative Christians are politically conservative and socially reserved like American Conservative Christians. So the question is whether the Social Gospel is Biblical enough for these Christians to adopt?

Of course, the next question is what is the Social Gospel? Here, we must acknowledge that the Social Gospel is not a monolith. It doesn't have just one definition. The Social Gospel can mean many things to many people. So I am going to define Social Gospel by what it means to a Christian Fundamentalist like myself. Note that not all, or even most, Fundamentalists, will agree with my definition.

Before defining what the Social Gospel is, we must ask how are the Gospel and Social Gospel related? There are two fatal errors that can be made when answering this question. The first one is to reduce the Gospel to the Social Gospel. This is the sin practiced by theological liberalism and they do this because they reduce all of reality to the physical realm and nature. To do so would be to deny both the nature and redemptive work of Jesus Christ who, being God's Son, died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead. It is also a denial of salvation by faith alone.

The second fatal flaw here would be to sever the Social Gospel from Gospel of Christ. Why? It is because the Social Gospel is an integral part of following what Jesus has either directly commanded or what can be implied from His commands. To amputate the Social Gospel from our faith is to encourage a kind of sanctification that revolves around how to be righteously selfish. That is the less we live for the benefit of others, the more our Christian life becomes an exercise in pleasing ourselves as long as we do not violate the accepted Christian taboos. Such leads to a kind of consumer Christianity and is thus a violent assault on the Gospel's call to all to repent. For we must ask whether the Gospel merely calls us to stop breaking certain religious conventions of our day or does its call to repentance penetrate that surface to challenge hearts full of selfish ambition.

We can think of the Social Gospel as the call to give temporal help to those whose need is caused by systematic neglect or oppression. Here, the Social Gospel consists of three parts. These parts are Social Justice, Social Action, and Personal Action. Social Justice would consist of calling on society, especially those with wealth and power, to cease their oppression and neglect of those who are suffering and are in great need. One of the rubs that exists here for many American Conservative Christians is how to obey Romans 13's injunctions to respect and submit to the governing authorities, or superiors as the Westminster Standards labeled them, while supporting those whom the authorities make suffer. We should note that those considered to be authorities include all from the public sector in addition to some from the private sector. Authorities from the private sector would include business owners and management.

The Social Gospel also includes actions that are designed to provide immediate relief from suffering. Sometimes this help comes from groups and sometimes from individuals. When groups provide such aid, it can be called Social Action. The many groups that went to the aid of the victims of Hurricane Sandy were involved with Social Action. Groups that provide food, housing, cleaning services, healthcare, and other care for society's neglected and oppressed people participate in Social Action. Here we should note that the demographics of those involved with Social Action cut across the conservative-liberal-leftist divides. The only controversy that can occur is in the identity of the recipients of the help. Liberals and Leftists will tend to help those who are more marginalized by the law. An example of such a group that will receive more help from Liberals and Leftists are "illegal" immigrants.

When help for those who suffer neglect or oppression come from individuals, rather than groups, we can call this Personal Action.This is the third part of Social Justice. People who have never heard of the Social Gospel or think that they oppose it have been practicing the Social Gospel whenever they help someone who is disadvantaged. This applies to people who tutor students or coach athletics from poor neighborhoods or to shut ins or the sick. This also applies to businessmen who donate goods to the poor or who give opportunities to the same people move up the company ladder.

So where's the beef with the Social Gospel? The contention lies with the first part: Social Justice. There are two bases for disagreement American Conservative Christians have when opposing the Social Justice part of the Social Gospel. The first grounds for objection is personal by church members and the second is theological by denomination and church leaders.

The personal reasons church members might have to oppose Social Justice can include tribalism, an unquestioning submission to authority, and an already comfortable life. In addition, some church members will have a grasp of the theological reasons taught by their leaders to maintain the same old, same old where the Church benefits from the status quo. Nothing illustrates that more than when ordinary church members who object to criticizing and trying to change the system as trying too hard because we have to wait until God brings His Kingdom to earth.

We can see tribalism in church members as they ignore the abuses of the their government in the name of patriotism. To even criticize America here is akin to siding with the enemy and thus being a traitor. The problem that such church members have is that the more their patriotism inhibits their examination and criticism of their country's moral failures, the more moral concerns become endangered. And the more such church members hold fast to unconditional submission to authority, the more these church members resemble the compliant citizens who have lived under the most tyranical regimes such as Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, and Red China. Unless we admit that these regimes provide the minimal standard of evil, then we must realize that the wrongdoing of any country must be opposed and opposed first by the people of that country.

Finally, we must address the Christian theologians who teach their followers to be passive in the light of the sins of those with wealth and power. The Social Gospel has been "delegitimized" by these theologians through theological models such as the New Legalism and theologies about the Kingdom of God. The models of thought that attempt to persuade people that they can prefer a life of comfort to bearing one's cross run the risk of following the example set by the pharisees as recorded in Matthew 15:1-20. What Jesus challenged the phariees on was their setting aside God's commandment to honor one's parents by taking money that could be used to support them by declaring those funds to be a religious donation.

We must ask these theologians this: which is more important, God's command to love our neighbor as ourselves or their definition of God's Kingdom or legalism? We must ask them this: which is more important, to preach the Gospel to all regardless of the status and wealth of the audience or to follow their theological models? We must ask these theologians this: which is more important, to be a faithful steward for God by trying to make the world a more just place or to pay more attention to these traditions that claim to interpret the Bible?

See, the Social Gospel doesn't have to based on sophisticated models of Biblical interpretation but on simple Biblical values of caring for others and wanting to spread the Gospel. And though one can legitimately argue that one does not care for someone by teaching false doctrine, neither can one love one's neighbor by ignoring their suffering that is a result of systematic oppression and neglect.

And so the question becomes for those who wish to relegate the Social Justice to be mere humanism and thus discarded, which reflects the love of God as seen in the sending of His Son to save those who were His enemies; is it seeking a life of personal peace and prosperity (a.k.a. seeking to live a quiet and peaceful life as long as one does not break current Christian taboos) or is it promoting Social Justice by challenging those with wealth and power to quit living as the rich man did in Luke 16: 19-31 as well as to treat all others as equals who have been made in the image of God?

The more people rely on the religious traditions of today to discredit Social Justice, the more they become pharisees who rejects God's Word that commands them to love, preach, and be good stewards so they can revel in their their sophisticated, theological constructs.

It Is Time To Take Names And Preach Repentance

When confronting Peter about his duplicitous behavior, Paul was not shy as recorded in Galations chapter 2. For Paul to be shy would imply that he was at least leaning toward trying to please people than God. What was Peter's sin? He would associate with Gentile Christians when he was by himself but withdrew from them when those from the Circumcision Party came. The Circumcision Party consisted of those who believed that Gentile Christians must follow all of the Jewish ceremonial laws including being circumcised. Paul regarded those in this party as preaching a false gospel.

The question the Conservative Church must answer today is how does it confront evil behavior? The Conservative Church has an answer but, like the behavior that Paul had to confront, it is duplicitous. When an average Joe commits sin, especially sexual sin, the Conservative Church is prepared to intervene and even bare its teeth. But when those with wealth and power sin, the Conservative Church backs away and becomes meek, mild, and some would say obedient. Sins such as waging immoral wars, destroying the environment, and manipulating the economy receive a far different treatment from the Conservative Church than personal sins committed by ordinary individuals. Why the double standard?

Those on the Left explain the duplicitous behavior this way. The Church, along with the education system and the news and entertainment media, serve as institutions of indoctrination to maintain the status quo with the status quo consisting of society being ruled over by those with wealth and power. This keeping the status quo can be done by either encouraging people to support the status quo or by minimizing dissatisfaction and resistance.

To see how correct the Left is in its assessment of the Church as an institution of indoctrination, one only needs to look at the tenets the Church teaches and the behaviors it promotes amongst its members. One of the basic tenets that the Conservative Church teaches its flock is to be preoccupied with oneself, to be spiritually narcissistic. This is first done through teaching the flock on how to be content in all situations. The result here is that contentment, especially in the face of hardship, is a measure of one's spirituality. Logically speaking, if one is taught that contentment is how we should respond when things are not going our way, one will very likely conclude that the way to help others who are going through trials is to teach them how to be content.

To answer this call to contentment, a parallel could be drawn here between the personal command to not to be anxious for our lives and not to work for food that perishes with how we should respond to those in need. Here, a different kind of double standard is imposed on Christians. Despite the Golden Rule, while we should learn to trust God and be content (Matthew 6:25-33 and John 6:27), we should look to provide for those in need (Matthew 25:31-46 and James 2:14-17).

Another way by which the Conservative Church leads its flock into a gross self-preoccupation is through its emphasis on saving faith. The way it is preached is that as long as one has saving faith, one can be apathetic to a world that is destroying itself. But we should note that that disinterest is selective. For when the world around us is doomed, this saving faith is adequate to give us peace. But how many Christians would have the same peace if they sold all they had to give to the poor?

Likewise, I have heard preachers reject the Social Gospel because feeding the hungry does means little if the same people are unbelievers and will condemned to hell. And the same goes with righting the wrongs of those who are oppressed. But here we must consider the source of these statements. Realize that these things are being said by well-fed pastors who, because of their own personal wealth, have more privileges than most people who live on earth. For not only must we ask the Biblical question of of how can people believe if there is nobody to preach the Gospel to them. We must ask how can people hear the Gospel when they are too hungry or oppressed to listen when it is preached.

The same self-centeredness can be found in the way Conservative Christians use Romans 13, the chapter that tells us to submit to all in authority, to quell resistance against the abusive practices of those with wealth and power. Basically, Conservative Christianity tells us that because of this chapter in the Bible, when it is those in authority who do the abusing, the hands of Conservative Christians are tied. There is a escape clause however. If  those in authority tell the Christian to do or refrain something that violates a Christian's conscience, the Christian is allowed to ignore those in authority.

The problem with the Conservative Christian approach here is that it reduces our relationship to tyrants to our personal obligations to honor those whom God has ordained as rulers. In so doing, those in the Conservative Christian are, again, being told to be concerned solely for oneself. They are being told to care first about being pure by submitting to those in authority while others suffer even cruelly. Their suffering, Conservative Christians are being told, is of no consequence. But saving oneself by being obedient, which in turn enables the persecution of others, is what is important.

Romans 13 is important. It played a role in Martin Luther King's thinking of how to react to abusive people in position of authority. However, unlike what the leaders of the Conservative Christian church tell their flock, King did not reduce how one should respond to unjust governments to Romans 13. Two other issues we must consider when determining how we will react to an abusive government are how we are to oppose evil and how to stand with the victims. In contrast to Romans 13, both of these issues call us to be concerned about and act on that what is outside of our interests.  Opposing evil calls on us to be stand against the evil of others while standing with the victims calls on us to show an abuse, and sometimes even death, defying compassion on others. We need to ask ourselves which behavior follows Christ's example more faithfully, is it obeying the authorities so that one is not punished or is it to risk what one has in order to protect innocent victims from bullies with power?

Now we should not jump to stereotypes about how the Conservative Christian Church teaches its members on how to respond to those in authority. Certainly some Conservative Churches, in the name of patriotism, condemn any resistance to the government that they see by some of its own politically progressive members. Other Conservative Churches, however,  allow for some of its members to resist those in authority but with a concern for not offending its good, submissive, patriotic members. These Churches do so by either merely trusting the consciences of those who resist or by exhorting people to take a political stand on whatever political side one's own understanding of the Bible leads them to.

This allowing for members to be on both sides of an issue can be a legitimate recognition of the complexity of an issue but it can also be used to dodge having to take a possibly costly stand. Just as we could ask how Christians could be on the both sides of the slavery issue during the 19th century, how can Christians be on both sides of fighting immoral wars,  of fraudulent foreclosure processes, of the poisoning of our food and environment, of the growing wealth disparity that is at least partially due to the reduction or elimination of workers' pay, rights and benefits, or the torture and/or murder of innocent civilians overseas? In short, how can any Church, in good conscience, be on both sides of all of the issues in a society where money rules and determines what is right and wrong? All of these attacks on innocent people and the environment are occurring because of government-corporation collusions where one hand washes the other and there is a revolving door for jobs between those in the private and public sectors.

Again, the Conservative Church has no qualms with persecuting an individual member for sexual sins but let a sin be both violent and perpetrated by either a businessman dressed for success or a person in a military uniform and we find that the Conservative Church is strangely silent. It is as if good clothes cover a multitude of sins. And one of the reasons for this double standard is that to take sides would mean that the Conservative Church could lose members and thus revenue.

Where the Conservative Church takes such a cowardly stand by treating defenseless, though not innocent, individuals harshly while overlooking the gross injustices of those with wealth and power, it exceeds the Apostle Peter's duplicitous behavior referred to at the beginning of this post. Already, those outside of the Church are trying to do the Church's job by calling those with wealth and power to repentance. Of course, without the Gospel, their calling of wealthy and powerful sinners to repentance will have many unnecessary flaws. But at least they are not afraid to say who is sinning and challenge them to repent. When will the Conservative Church do the same? When will the Conservative Church name those who are committing sins that devastate the lives of the vulnerable? The Conservative Church will do so when it commits itself to pleasing God rather than people. The Conservative Church will do so when it no longer agrees to serve as an institution of indoctrination for the status quo.