Why The Church?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moore's Article On Baltimore Shows Christian Narcissism

Russell Moore, a key figure in the Southern Baptist Church, just wrote an article in the Christian Post about what the city of Baltimore needs (click here for the article). Unfortunately, the article might say more about us Christians and our collective self-image than it says about Baltimore and its problems. I write this because for all of the complex problem that city is facing, Moore says the following:

But I would argue that the primary need Baltimore has is for the church.

And it isn't that Moore isn't aware of some of Baltimore's problems and their underlying causes. And Moore recognizes that the Church cannot solve the city's problems by itself. But he believes that the solution to the city revolves around the Church. To some, that might sound a bit narcissistic.

It isn't Moore's take on Baltimore alone that tells us American Conservative Christianity might be having serious problems with narcissism, we could look at the same-sex marriage issue as well. For all one has to do is to read what many of these same Christians have to say about the same-sex marriage issue and the theme is the same: it is all about the Church. For many of us are saying either what will happen to us if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land or we are saying what will happen to both marriage and the nation if our sexual morals are not followed. So whether we are talking about Baltimore or same-sex marriage, the conversation eventually revolves around Christians and the Church.

So Moore's take on Baltimore is this. What we are witnessing there is sin and its effects. So what we see there is normal because sin is normal. The Church has the only antidote for sin because it is the place where Jesus reigns. And a result of Jesus reigning in the Church is that 'carnal divisions' between people caused by sin are torn down. Those in the Church are now united with their fellow believers and are serving each other. And so if the Baltimore looks to the Church, it will see what it can become.

There is a problem with Moore's analysis here in that it is too simplistic. Even when Moore gives a more detailed list of Baltimore's problems, he leaves out an important problem. The problem he leaves out is the continual problem with police abuse-- he only lists the Freddy Gray incident of police violence. It doesn't take much internet searching to discover that the police treatment of Gray was merely a tipping point, not the sole incident. Ta-Nehisi Coates reports that over 100 cases of police abuse have been found to be true by the courts since 2011 (click here). Another source has reported that almost $6 millions has been awarded to the victims of this violence. And yet, Moore can only hope that justice can be found in the Freddy Gray case. Thus, Moore only asks the protesters to be peaceful, he does not include the police.

In addition, Moore speaks of Christ's reign in the Church and subsequent justice there in absolute terms as if peace and justice were an already accomplished fact. He also speaks of the Church as if it is untainted and above being corrupted by culture. Is that what we find to be true in real life? And isn't the Church already divided by both denomination and race?

Another problem that exists here is that a basic requirement to be found in solving Baltimore's problems is that the solution(s) must meet the needs  of a heterogeneous population. When we look at how we Conservative Christians have been reacting to the move to legalize same-sex marriages and the animosity of some of us to those in the LGBT community, can we say that we are providing a good example of how to live together in a heterogeneous population? In other words, do we work and play well with others?

We should note that the charge of narcissism should be carefully made. And it should not be made by amateurs. However, when we look at the signs of narcissism, and we realize that at least 5 of these signs must be met for someone to actually qualify as being a narcissist, don't the reactions of us Conservative Christians to the rioting in Baltimore and our reactions to others, such as those in the LGBT community, give people reason to be concerned about us? The signs of narcissism are listed below (click here for source) :

• exaggerated sense of one's own importance
• absorbed with fantasies of power, success, beauty, and so on
• one believes that they are above others and can only be understood by those who are also better than others
• demands lavish acclaim
• unrealistic expectations regarding how others should favor them and their views
• exploitive
• has a hard time understanding how others feel
• is jealous of others
• arrogant

Are we Conservative Christians exhibiting at least 5 of the above signs of narcissism in how we are responding to the world and its problems? I am afraid that too many people would answer with a resounding 'YES'! And they would answer that way because of what they see in us.

Here, we must make a distinction between how the world needs God and how it needs the Church. We must make that distinction because we so often misrepresent God in how we live and treat others. All of us do. We could all be justly charged with hypocrisy if hypocrisy is preaching one thing but doing another. And how much hypocrisy is in our lives depends on how much we are compromising God's Word in order to get what we want.

Baltimore does need God and His Word in order to be at least partially restored. But some of the truths of His Word can come to Baltimore without the Church. God's Word can come to Baltimore through His common grace, which can speak through consciences of all sorts of people. And whether God's grace comes to Baltimore through the Church depends on how faithful His Church is being.  So the question continues to be for us conservative Christians and whether we can help others, are we being faithful to God or are we merely looking for more attention when we say that the world needs us?

Reviewing The Cultural Case For Capitalism Part 5 of 12

In today's episode of A Cultural Case For Capitalism (click here for part 5 of 12), Jonathan Witt attempts to solidify acceptance of Capitalism by tying it closely to Christianity. However, there is a problem, the branch of Christianity Witt wants to tie the origins of Capitalism with is that which appeared in the Dark Ages. So Witt must first dispel the monicker "Dark Ages" from this time period. Once he has done that, he hopes that the association he has built between Christianity and Capitalism makes Capitalism more than acceptable.

Witt does acknowledge that abuses took place back during this time period. He then goes to cite Rodney Stark, a historian and sociologist from Baylor, in stating that the Dark Ages weren't that dark by noting the advances that took place in technology, the arts, and literature. He then goes on to conclude that the advances that came in science and emergence of the Middle Class came from the "political, economic, and religious freedom" which in turn came from the Christian understanding that man was made in the image of God.

But there is a problem here. Should one, after studying history, associate political and religious freedom with Christianity's main institution, the Church? To answer this question, we might want to ask a series of questions. For example, what was the plight of the Jews during the Middle Ages? Weren't they expelled out of a number of Christian European countries during this time? And didn't they also serve as scapegoats for horrors like the Black Plague and thus were punished and killed in order to appease the Christian God? And didn't the Crusades occur during the Middle Ages where the knights participating in these wars sometimes showed more cruelty their Muslim counterparts? And didn't the Inquisition at times claim as its victims heretics and Jews and wasn't the mass burning of Jews part of the Inquisition?

And as we leave the 1500s, not forgetting Martin Luther's writings against the Jews, and proceed into the 1600, didn't Calvin's Geneva persecute and slaughter heretics and witches? And even here in the U.S., didn't the Puritans persecute and even martyr Quakers and, of course, that doesn't include the ethnic cleansing of America's indigenous people from the land because the Christian European settlers back then saw themselves as being a "New Israel?" And didn't some Christians also participate in the enslaving of Blacks for Biblical reasons? And let's not forget Christian Europe's colonizing of much of the world for the sake of gaining riches.

And, of course, none of this includes how the Church persecuted new thoughts and the people who produced them, such as Copernicus and heliocentricity, because it challenged the Church's interpretation of reality and thus its power?

See, these are problems that seem to be minimized by just acknowledging that there were horrors that came from the Middle Ages. And we should also note that horrors also came from places after the Middle Ages where the Church was still dominant. And as Witt tries to say that there are horrors in every age, which is true, it seems to create an irony. It is an irony because if the Church has received their message from God, why should a time period in which it is dominant so much resemble the rest of human history? 

See, problems grow when one wants to go beyond minimizing the tyranny of past Christianity and then try to associate religious and political freedoms solely with that Christianity. We should also note that authoritarianism is a main ingredient both in the structure of the Church and relationships Christians have with others. And usually, one doesn't normally associate freedoms with authoritarianism.  

So what about the claim that our freedoms are rooted in the belief that we are created in the image of God? We could take two approaches here. We could simply go back in time to see if that is what Christians, who were from both the Middle Ages and the time period afterwards wherever Christianity was dominant, concluded and practiced for others and not just themselves. Then we can also peek at whether those from the enlightenment contributed to the beliefs in political and religious freedoms.

But there is another approach we could take to Witt's claim. That approach seems to tie together Witt's basic concern with economic freedom with the model used by this blog to examine Witt's writings. If the idea of economic freedom came from the Medieval belief that man was made in God's image, then why is this freedom being associated with such an authoritarian institution like the Christian Church of the Dark Ages?

That question is more aptly answered by the model of thought used by this blog in examining Witt's writings on Capitalism (click here). That is because this blog has stated that democratic rule would eventually limit individual rights because such puts a growing priority on wealth over values such work and need and thus the concern for others. Thus, elite-centered rule is needed as individual rights and ownership increase over collective ownership. In fact, protecting the financial elites was James Madison's concern during the Constitutional debates when he expressed his fear that expanding the vote in England could result in agrarian reforms (click here and search for his comments on Tuesday, June 26). We should note that the Constitution was written to strengthen the Federal government in order to protect the financial elites of that time from  discontent and rebellion (click here and there to see Henry Knox's letter to George Washington and Federalist Paper #10).

Is economic freedom as applied to the individual really a foundational liberty based on the idea that man is made in God's image? Or has our model, and more importantly history, shown that economic liberty is code for increasing the privileges of business owners and the financial elite at the expense of the rights and well-being all other stakeholders in the economic system? Appealing to Christianity from the Middle Ages, as Witt does, seems to forget that not only was the Church, that is the Roman Church, very authoritarian, so were many Protestants. And quite often, the Protestants of history who sought political freedoms were not seeking freedoms for all but for themselves and others in their tribe only. 

In actuality, the freedoms that Witt says come from Medieval Christianity actually came from political structures. The political structure Witt noted was the city-state. But forerunner of the city-state were communes, an entity that naturally could rub the King and the Church the wrong way. The communes were walled cities and they did offer some liberties to the peasants who joined. At the same time there was a cost to belonging to a commune. That cost included mutual defense pacts so a degree of loyalty was required. So in a commune, there was a combination of both individual rights and collective ownership. Basically, these communes came into existence to provide protection for its members from lawless elites (nobles) and others in the absence of a centralized authority. If the protection could not come in time, then some sort of revenge would be exacted from the offending party as way of inhibiting future attacks. 

What we have today is a system that stresses freedoms, or perhaps we should say privileges because the freedoms are but for a few, for business elites--the lawless nobles of our day. This has resulted in what Witt and others like him call "Crony Capitalism." This form of Capitalism sees those with official authority prostitute themselves by the favors and special treatment they provide for the financial elite in exchange for money. And though Witt and others like him sincerely state that this is not the kind of political-economic system they want, it is difficult to see how what they advocate, economic freedoms or privileges protected by elite centered rule, can ever possibly emerge into something different. After all, why does Witt try to so tightly bind economic liberty with Christianity except to give economic liberty the credentials to be readily accepted. Such is an authoritarian move.

Is The Conservative Church Disturbing The Peace?

The answer to the question is both yes and no and in the wrong way each time. The Left's most often made criticism about the Church is that it serves as an institution of indoctrination. The purpose of the indoctrination is to teach compliance to the dictates of the rich and powerful. Unfortunately, the Conservative Church as met the Left's expectations admirably.

But first, who am I referring to when I mention the Conservative Church? It consists of the majority of American Christian Fundamentalist Churches. Fundamentalist Churches are those that adhere to specific tenets of the Christian faith of the inerrancy of the Bible, the Virgin Birth, that Jesus died for the sins of believers, Jesus' resurrection and His second coming. But as I write about the Conservative Church,  I am sad that I must write about friends and brothers and sisters in the faith.

How does the Conservative Church exceed the Left's expectations? It does so by how it keeps the peace. It does so by what it says to those who are under the whip of the rich and powerful as well as what it refrains from saying to those who use this whip. The Conservative Church has two messages for those who live under this whip for it speaks to two distinct groups: the minions and the victims. To the minions, the Conservative Church says this, "well done thou good and faithful servants, enjoy now the prosperity that has been promised to you." However, unlike the heavenly reward that true believers will receive, this reward consists of an abundant life here to which every good minion feels entitled. After all, the good minion has faithfully followed the orders of the proper authority figures and has thus earned a reward. And living faithfully and being rewarded provides the best witness to others on how to have it all in life in a sanctified way.

Who are these minions? Minions are those who are comfortable with the way things are. They are content because they have a decent income from either investments and/or employment. And since they themselves have benefitted from the system, they see no need to change it. Therefore these minions either work to continue the reign of the rich and powerful or they remain silent. They do not even consider the most minimal efforts one can take to change things, like voting for third party candidates. Their vision is severely myopic and this has blinded them to the suffering of others as well as made their hearts cold and their minds dull.

Minions may also include those in law enforcement and the military who blindly follow orders because, they feel, it is not their place to step back and look at the big picture. Thus, they enforce the rule of the rich and powerful. Law enforcement agencies do this on a domestic level while the military expands the rule of its rich and powerful sponsors over new turf. This criticism is difficult to make because of the kinds of risks that those in both law enforcement and the military face when doing jobs that are necessary. They deserve appreciation and respect for that. But any group that offers near blind allegiance pretends that use of their services is never abused.

To those receiving the whip, such as those who have received the brunt of today's economic distress, the Conservative Church offers an interesting message of support. Here, the Conservative Church offers to teach these abuse victims how to become Spiritual Spartans. And one becomes a Spiritual Spartan by first believing the Gospel and then by learning to be content in all things, that is to suck it up or take a lap, and finally by yielding unquestioning obedience to the authorities, that is be good little children so one is not spanked. The goal of the Christian Church here is to get Spiritual Spartans to behave like the minions despite the wealth disparity.

The Conservative Church goes on to explain that being a Spiritual Spartan is the precedent set by leaders in the early Church, particularly Paul. Paul neither resisted the injustice visited up him by the Roman authorities nor did he teach others to do so. Paul is the apostle who told all to be submissive to the governing authorities, he told wives to be submissive to their husbands and children to be submissive to their parents, and he told slaves to cheerfully serve their owners and not to seek their own freedom. And, the Conservative Church reasons that if it was good enough for Paul, it must be good enough for the rest of us. In addition, the victims should never forget the heavenly reward that awaits them should they remain faithful Spiritual Spartans. And this focus on heavenly rewards is designed to make these Spiritual Spartans as myopic as the minions have become.

And though there is some truth in what the Conservative Church preaches to its flock, whether they be minions or Spiritual Spartans, not only do they leave out the context from their Biblical teachings, it keeps a disturbing silence when relating to wealth and power. This is where the Conservative Church refrains from disturbing the peace in the wrong way. It refrains from preaching a Gospel of Repentance to their benefactors--benefactors because the Conservative Church lives on the donations that come from the rich and powerful and their minions.

But by faithfully maintaining the status quo, the Conservative Church also becomes complicit in the sins and the violence being practiced. And by enabling the rich and powerful's oppression of others, the Conservative Church is disturbing the peace in the wrong way. The Conservative Church refrains from challenging America's use of wars and proxy leaders and by so doing it shows a reluctance to learn from the past. Certainly, it is aware of some past abuses, such as America's past support for leaders like Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, or Pinochet; but it steadfastly prefers to maintain a disconnect in contrast to experiencing a shameful but healing sense of regret. So in the name of the minigod Patriotism, it supports troops and the havoc they cause.

Likewise, the Conservative Church supports violence on local dissenters and others. An extreme example of this support could be seen in the words one conservative church goer told me as I told him of a protest I participated in in D.C. He said that just as Jesus used violence to expel the moneychangers, he would have used a baseball bat on protesters like myself. But such an example does not characterize the Conservative Church. Rather, they lend explicit or implicit approval of whatever tactics are used by law enforcement on dissenters. In fact, it supports even harsh law enforcement on all others than themselves. In short, we could say that when the Conservative Church disturbs the peace, it does so through surrogates who wear uniforms.

The answer to the question of whether the Conservative Church is disturbing the peace depends on whose peace. For, as of late, the Conservative Church refuses to disturb the peace of the rich and powerful regardless of their sins. But by offering unconditional support to the same group, the Conservative Church vicariously disturbs the peace of all others. So for all its complaining about today's godless world and state of affairs, the Conservative Church seems to be content since it does not muster the courage required to change things.