Would you sign this expression of empathy with people who are not citizens of the United States? Here is how it begins:
The United States has experienced a contentious election and post-election season marked by fear, polarization, and violence. The current political climate reveals longstanding national sins of racism, misogyny, nativism, and great economic disparity. As faculty members of Christian institutions of higher education who represent varying degrees of privilege and power (but who are not representing those institutions in this document), we, the undersigned, join our voices with those who are most vulnerable.
We affirm the dignity of every human being as created in God’s image (Gen. 1:27). We submit to the sovereignty of Christ who humbled himself unto death. As members of his body, we strive to consider others above ourselves (Phil. 2:2–8); to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15); to serve one another in humility (Matt. 20:26–28); and to honor and steward God’s good creation (Gen. 1:28). As one body, if one member suffers, all suffer (1 Cor. 12:26); if one weeps, the body laments with them (Rom. 12:15); even creation groans in bondage to decay (Rom. 8:19-23).
I wonder if these Christian faculty would be inclined to sign a man-made creed, say like the Westminster Confession or the Book of Concord? I thought evangelicals were supposed to be anti-creedal.
Oh well.
Here‘s why Chris Gehrz signed (even though he admits he hesitated):
Indeed, I think most Christians would affirm them, whatever their theological, political, or other differences. While hardly an exhaustive list of Christian beliefs, these convictions are nevertheless foundational to Christian faith, community, and mission. And, as the statement goes on to explain, such commitments need to be restated and acted upon in a time when there is “falsehood that seeks to undermine truth and any propaganda intended to obscure it,” when a “large portion of our communities is weeping” and there is genuine anxiety and fear among many of our neighbors.
A concern for truth is obviously important for academics, whatever their religious beliefs and doubts. Why our role as Christian educators would compel us to acknowledge “pain and woundedness” and then “entreat Christian communities to seek healing, reconciliation, and justice” may be less evident.
Here‘s why his colleague, Ray VanArragon (what a Dutch-American name), wouldn’t sign:
First, the petition is unduly expansive, covering a range of topics that include racism, economic disparity, the environment, and our lack of neighborliness. At the same time it does not offer any recommendations for concrete responsive action.
Second, it employs language that tends to put off people who live outside of academic circles. It speaks vaguely about “structural injustice” and “degrees of privilege and power,” without explaining what those terms mean. It slyly suggests that Christians ought to share the priorities of the political left – a suggestion reinforced by the fact that, expansive as it is, it makes no mention of abortion. Right-of-center Christians, even well-meaning ones, may be inclined to dismiss the petition as pompous, disingenuous, and one-sided.
Here’s why I’m not.
This statement:
The current political climate reveals longstanding national sins of racism, misogyny, nativism, and great economic disparity.
Does not go with this statement:
we affirm our deep resolve to pursue truth, to reason carefully, and to rely on sound evidence.
Outrage is easy. So is moral posturing. Thinking carefully so that you don’t exhibit moral overreach is a challenge. I’d have thought educators would know this.
Old Life 
D.G.,
Saying that Nazi Germany was immoral when it invaded its neighbors and persecuted the Jews is silly?
LikeLike
Rev 153,
Actually, the ministers I have heard of who stated this confessed to the denominational sin of supporting racism. I favor ministers recognizing our nation’s racism and trying to do something about it. As for me, I try to point out racism but I also encourage people to listen to those people who belong to races that have been marginalized. They are in a better position to tell us where racism still exists. The stigma around being labeled a racist produces a conflict of interests in people that prevents them from objectively examining themselves. And that includes me too.
LikeLike
” You acknowledge collective guilt. I do to. But it seems here that our disagreement comes in how to recognize when that collective guilt occurs. ”
I think that is almost right..I think it is less disagreement than it is me trying to understand what you mean. Collective labeling can be used as a rhetorical shorthand and literally. I’m not saying one is true and the other false. I’m trying to understand which you mean in particular examples.
For example, when I say Clemson won the National championship, I am using Clemson as shorthand for the players, coaches, and trainers who won. The history prof at Clemson who doesn’t know a football from a basketball did not win anything, doesn’t get a ring, commemorative jersey, or get to put on his cv that he was a national champion. So saying, “Clemson won” is rhetorical shorthand for saying the football team won.
When three guys work together to sin, they are all guilty because each one individually materially cooperated in the sin. Refering to them collectively is again rhetorical shorthand. In this scenario, there is no one being found guilty because they were being represented by the three (say their wives, children, or friends).
However, there are cases in scripture when one is found guilty on the basis of one’s representative. When Adam sinned, I was made guilty not because I also ate the forbidden fruit, but because I was represented by Adam. There are of course other examples where people bear guilt by virtue of their representative’s actions. Unlike the example of the three guys who cooperated on a robbery, collective guilt in these OT examples is not rhetorical shorthand.
What I don’t see on the NT side of the cross are biblical examples of such collective guilt. Additionally, it is not clear to me how tp appropriate prophetic warnings made in the context of Israel’s covenant status for modern.nation states (application to churches following Revelation makes more sense). I certainly understand why one might reference individuals collectively from a grammatical stand point, but if we forget that these references are rhetorical shorthand it seems possible that one might misapply biblical texts that use similar rhetoric and mean something different.
Looking at your example of Nazi Germany, we might argue over paying taxes to a state that does evil stuff makes one culpable of evil (if so Jesus and Paul commanded Christians to sin), but setting that aside, your rationale rests on the individual’s material cooperation rather than their group identity. Do you see my confusion?
The reason this matters in the US is related to policy. If you say we are guilty of slavery and Jim Crow, many will respond, “I had nothing to do with it. Why should I repent or be expected to make amends?” If you are speaking rhetorically they make a good point. If you mean that they bear guilt based on their representative’s actions, I think you have a lot of work to do to demonstrate it. The way this discussion has evolved nationally is to take on the concepts of privilege and microaggression. The evidence is that this has been a counterproductive move (and is already being appropriated and weaponized by wealthy, white college students). There is a different path, but it is not very popular unfortunately. That is to set aside moral rhetoric when engaging public policy and adopt public reason. But that is a different conversation.
My point, such as it is, is to understand what you mean by collective guilt and why.
LikeLike
Curt,
We were not talking about DG, we were talking about you. You consistently overemphasize and put the spotlight on “sharing society” with others and other social gospel/ liberation theology views. So it becomes hard to believe that is not your core view of the gospel’s essence. If we want to know what the gospel is our best resource is the Bible. To observe what God says about it is our best resource, not the opinions of others, whether victims or not.
I pointed out that the Cambridge Declaration does a much better job of pointing to Biblical views of the Gospel than does the document in question from the original post.
Also, the signers and the document itself referenced and link in the original post by Dr. Hart (again the point) were not talking about Providence. They say “gospel” clearly. In fact they hammer away about their leftist issues being the gospel.
As one observer who refused to sign it rightly points out……..
“It speaks vaguely about “structural injustice” and “degrees of privilege and power,” without explaining what those terms mean. It slyly suggests that Christians ought to share the priorities of the political left.”
You do the same thing. But again that is why you are defending this document and movements like this one.
LikeLike
Chile’s economy was in free-fall following the rise of Allende and headed to a Venezuela-like implosion. Pinochet and his regime did a lot of terrible things, but Chile remains much better off today as a result of many of the reforms he put in place that persist.
LikeLike
E. Burns,
We can’t talk about both? When you ask what I wrote about and part of what I wrote about addresses something D.G. said, we can’t talk about that?
The problem I see for you is what you associate with sharing society with others. You seem locked on only one association with that concetp: Social Gospel and liberation theology. And even with that, it seems that one can’t see individual valid point with the Social Gospel and liberation without one embracing it as a whole according to your understanding. And such a view is too limited to recognize reality.
Every Christian who is not living in a monastery deals with the question of how they as Christians will share society with others. Even theonomists deal with that question though their answer is somewhat different from mine. Any Christian who lives in society must deal that question.
Your difficulty in believing what I am say has to do with the associations you insist on making when I bring up certain concepts. Basically, you’re jumping to conclusions based on what you have exposed yourself to before.. And again, your thinking has led you to believe that if one shares a few tenets with the political left, one embraces all of their theology.
So tell me, why can’t a religiously conservative Christian share some of the tenets of the political left for different reasons than those on the political left do?
LikeLike
sdb,
Just because people in German society had different roles, doesn’t mean that they don’t share in the guilt of what they nation did. They just participated in different ways from the leaders who ordered the sinful acts to those who carried them out to those who knew what was going on and said not a word to those who could have known what was going on but made no effort to learn. Those who resisted, found ways to not participate in what Germany was doing then. The same goes for us now with what our nation is doing only suffice to say that we don’t have to be as bad as the nazis to warrant moral examination.
LikeLike
Curt,
Already established I do have certain empathy and agreement with some views of the left and that I am no right wing culture warrior Fox News junky Christian. But I lean more strongly, I tend to settle on the conservative side of things. I am OK just clearly stating such. I have no compulsion toward the Hegelian method. My trouble believing you has to do with your studied ambiguity and incongruent way of processing/ engaging. Your conclusion are not taking from exegesis, but from reading into things your prior political worldview (social gospel/ liberation theology) , hence you go off on infinite regress rabbit trails when someone tries to pin down what you are driving at. You clearly have a social gospel / liberation theology perspective, but when pressed you want to be coy and evasive, making things that are not at all the issue, the issue.
Again sharing is good, it is the overemphasis that is the problem. The highest order of things in the Christian life is not sharing let alone many other things the social gospel and liberation theology make it out to be. That is where the signers of the document in the original post differ from those who refused to sign it and that is where you and I differ.
I think at that heart of those differences is our views of the gospel itself. I think social justice/ liberation theology is essentially (although there are elements of truth in some of the issues they are concerned about) a “different gospel.”
I can and do recognize the legit concerns (even agree with some things) of the left. It is where they ultimately take it that is the problem. Case in point, the original post and the signed document referenced is in no way reffering to Providence. They clearly make their leftist ideology tethered to what the essence of the gospel is. As I stated from the get go, that is wrong when the right does it and it is wrong when the left does it.
LikeLike
Also another case in point, you state to sdb …….
“Those who resisted, found ways to not participate in what Germany was doing then. The same goes for us now with what our nation is doing only suffice to say that we don’t have to be as bad as the nazis to warrant moral examination.”””
While you give yourself somewhat of an out by kind of saying we middle class Americans are not as bad as the nazis.
Nonetheless you are equating an awful lot here. (Studied ambiguity)
So Curt, in what ways should we “”not participate in what our nation is doing””? Can you give us a list? What on that list requires similar type “moral examinations” that we would give Nazi’s. Please understand I think much that our nation does deserves deep moral examination. I can think of a list. But somehow I bet your list is going to be more like the one listed on the document signed by a bunch of left social gospel leaning folks from original post.
“structural injustice” and “degrees of privilege and power,” etc. etc.
When you state we “should not participate in what our nation is doing” and tie it into things nazi’s did and further more (as with the leftist views of original document in first post) tie it to the gospel…………..can you at all see where many of us find that a problem?
LikeLike
” Just because people in German society had different roles, doesn’t mean that they don’t share in the guilt of what they nation did.”
No argument there. The question is whether people who had no role in what the nation did other than sharing a German idenity shared in the guilt. Does the German born in 1943 share in the guilt (like Korah’s children)? If the answer is no, then Germans aren’t collectively guilty – speaking of collective guilt is just rhetorical shorthand to talk about the large number of Germans who did bad things which I surmise is what yoy mean based on you writing,
“They just participated in different ways from the leaders who ordered the sinful acts to those who carried them out to those who knew what was going on and said not a word to those who could have known what was going on but made no effort to learn.”
So the question is what responsibility a believer has as a citizen of a state that does evil things. It just so happens that we have an example in the NT. Jesus tells us to pay taxes to Caesar, so paying taxes to an evil regime cannot be sinful. Paul tells us to honor Nero !?!!), so honoring a ruler who uses rape, genocide, and enslavement doesn’t count (financial support of demonic worship by buying meat sacrificed to idols isn’t sinful, so presumably indiresct subsidy of sinful behavior is not itself sinful), and Paul didn’t speak out against slavery and sent a slave back to his owner indicating not working against social injustice is not sinful. The NT examples provide boundary conditions for what should be included in a blanket declaration of sinful behavior.
“Those who resisted, found ways to not participate in what Germany was doing then.”
Right. So they weren’t collectively guilty.
“The same goes for us now with what our nation is doing only suffice to say that we don’t have to be as bad as the nazis to warrant moral examination.”
Paul tells us not to judge those outside the church, so we shouldn’t engage in moral examination of unbelievers. Prudential judgements in our role as citizens is a different matter. The church doesn’t have the authority to pass judgment on adiaphoric matters, and the scriptures do not provide a prescription for how citizens should engage the state thus it is not a moral matter.
LikeLike
sdb,
When you look at the list of people I already mentioned, who was left in German society to be those who had no role? People just born? They wouldn’t share but they shared in the results
Btw, I never asked whether citizens shared the some the same guilt as the leaders. Citizens had their own guilt and failures.
And, btw, if you look at he example of Achan, who should not have shared in his guilt?
LikeLike
E. Burns,
An out? How many nations sinned to the degree that Nazi Germany did? Almost all and people recognize that. But having sinned less than Nazi Germany does not leave us off the hook. So I am kind of saying the opposite from how you took it.
As to how we don’t have to share in the participation of our nation’s sins, I think History provides a more comprehensive list than I could. So look at the past examples of how citizens opposed the actions and laws of their nations and compile a list. What the citizens in Nazi Germany did will contribute to the list as well as the actions performed by those who protested wars or those who protested Jim Crow. Certainly, those are not the only examples, but when you look at history, you will get a better list of ideas than what I could provide.
LikeLike
Curt,
The point is that while there may be elements of truth to some concerns about injustice, etc. social justice/ liberation theology is essentially a “different gospel.”
Again, that is where the academic signers of the document in the original post differ from those who refused to sign it and that is where you and I differ.
LikeLike
“When you look at the list of people I already mentioned, who was left in German society to be those who had no role? People just born? They wouldn’t share but they shared in the results”
Right, so there is no collective guilt. Speaking of Germany sinning during ww2 is rhetorical shorthand for referring to the sins of individuals in the state.
“Btw, I never asked whether citizens shared the some the same guilt as the leaders. Citizens had their own guilt and failures.”
No dispute from me, but this clarifies that we are not talking about collective, national sin. The reason this matters is that it provides important boundaries for how we appropriate the OT passages for political guidance.
“And, btw, if you look at he example of Achan, who should not have shared in his guilt?”
Achan’s? Those who were not found guilty – those for whom he was not a repesentative. Those he did represent were collectively found guilty on account of their representative’s sin. Thus his children and even livestock were killed.
LikeLike
E. Burns,
I understand that liberation theology is a different gospel. That has never been the issue. The issue has always been what specifics from liberation theology can we learn from and use.
So what in the confessional statement above do you see as being antithetical to the Gospel so that one could not honestly hold to both?
LikeLike
sdb,
Don’t know why you came to the conclusion you did. That the just born didn’t share in the collective guilt doesn’t imply no one did. There is a sharp distinction between those who had no role in Nazi Germany’s national sins and those who did.
But even if we were to argue from the example of Achan, then even the born in Nazi Germany share in the guilt of their nation’s sins.
So whether the just born share the guilt in national sins of Nazi Germany or not. there is collective guilt.
LikeLike
Curt,
Getting the gospel right, is the issue. It is the problem with the document in question.
Curt states—“”So what in the confessional statement above do you see as being antithetical to the Gospel so that one could not honestly hold to both?””
Ray VanArragon put it very well I think and he is also linked above in original post………
“”First, the petition is unduly expansive, covering a range of topics that include racism, economic disparity, the environment, and our lack of neighborliness. At the same time it does not offer any recommendations for concrete responsive action. It speaks vaguely about “structural injustice” and “degrees of privilege and power,” without explaining what those terms mean. It slyly suggests that Christians ought to share the priorities of the political left – a suggestion reinforced by the fact that, expansive as it is, it makes no mention of abortion. Right-of-center Christians, even well-meaning ones, may be inclined to dismiss the petition as pompous, disingenuous, and one-sided.””
It does speak vaguely about “injustice”, it also takes its direction about what the Gospel is not primarily from God, but rather from current social issues, “victims” and (as mentioned many times) from a left leaning sense of moral outrage. That is not the Gospel, but it has been elevated to such. I have no compulsion to synchronize these two, I have no compulsion toward the Hegelian method. In fact that is a big part of the problem you and the signers of said document have, your need to synchronize. Where I would seek to be more Christ like in the areas neighborly love is one thing, it is another to confuse my sharing, my activism, my “doing the gospel”, my perceived good works, etc. with the Gospel.
That is a serious problem, as Paul pointed out in Galatians 1. Pretty strict warnings for those who mess with the Gospel. The document does “slyly suggest that Christians ought to share the priorities of the left”, ties it to the gospel (not Providence) and by implication if people are not in line with it they are not being as faithful to the gospel. But this is what happens when folks make the highest order of things in the Christian life “sharing society” and other such things.
The Gospel is not about our activism, it is about the person and work of Christ.
LikeLike
If there is a sharp distinction between those who had no role and those who did, then that group (all Germans) are not collectively guilty. Rather the people who each had a role in the activity were individually guilty and bore their own guilt.
Right. If the leaders of a nation (or any other group) are moral representatives of the people, then people being thus represented are collectively guilty (or blessed) on the basis of their representative. There are instances where this is true. A few examples that I have provided are the people of Sodom, the people of Ninevah, the family of Korah, etc… The most famous example of course are the descendants of Adam. We are born “sinful and miserable” and under the curse of death not because of anything we did, but because of what our representative did on our behalf. Of course, the elect are made righteous not because of anything they did, but because of what our savior did on our behalf. This is the gospel! The God’s dealing with the nations under the old covenant was in the context of their relationship to His chosen nation. The blessings and curses described in the OT must be understood in this context. In the new covenant, the blessings and curses are described in relation to one’s belonging in the church.
Again, I’m trying to gain some precision here so that I understand exactly what you mean. I don’t dispute the reality of collective guilt. I do dispute who the representatives are under whom guilt is collected. Citizens of Germany during the Nazi regime were not collectively guilty (guilty because of their citizenship). Each was guilty only because of what each did individually. This is different from the OT examples. My point is not that every punishment doled out for collective sin is the same, but instead to illustrate the scope of collective sin – the babies are mentioned explicitly to highlight how they were under the curse by virtue of their identity not their behavior. I gather you are not claiming that for Germans. Rather you are claiming that those who participated in the regime contributed materially to the crimes of the Nazis and all of those people (who all but a very few exceptional cases) are similarly guilty of the same thing. Is this what you mean by collective guilt?
LikeLike
sdb,
If collective guilt is the result of corporate sin, then why are you hung up on the status of those who did not participate in the corporate sin? That groups sin doesn’t mean that everyone in the groups played the same role in those sins. And for those who are not guilty or not as guilty, their non participation, as in the case of infants and small children, or their resistance to the group sin show that participation in sins of one’s own group is not necessarily inevitable.
And realize here that when it comes to national sins, we are talking about how Christians relate to society. How they relate to society is is not necessarily a part of the Gospel proclamation. But that we must relate to society is a reality. Here, we are not just talking about a nation’s leaders being the moral representatives of the people, we are talking about people who either voluntarily contribute to the immoralities promoted by a nation’s leaders or who in silent complicity support the actions of a nation’s leaders.
When a group murder and steal from others, that group is seen as a single entity as well as an organization of individuals. We see that within a nation when a company commits fraud, the company is punished or when a nation violates certain standards, the nation as a whole is punished. But then we also have the accountability of individuals within those groups because the individuals did not have the same roles in the lawless and/or immoral acts they performed. I get the feeling that one of the difficulties you have in seeing the points I am making is that you are employing an exclusive-or logic when thinking about individual and group sins.
LikeLike
E. Burns,
Again, understanding that the gospel preached by liberation theology is a false gospel is not the issue here. The issue is whether liberation theology, despite its faulty view of the Gospel, as any contributions to make to our understanding of how we should share society with others. Certainly you don’t believe that only Christians or only conservatives can help us understand how to better society. And how to work for a better society is both a reality and not a proclamation of the Gospel.
And let’s remember what Jesus said during the beginning of His ministry. He quoted Isaiah when Isaiah was talking about those who were victims. In addition, Social Justice doesn’t speak to victims alone, it speaks to those who oppress and/or exploit those who are vulnerable. You might find it interesting that if you survey the topics mentioned in sermons, they vary according to whether the members of a congregation enjoy privilege or suffer through marginalization. Bonhoeffer discovered this when attending a church in Harlem while studying at Union Theological Seminary. Why did this occur? Because the members of the church he attended had to learn how to live through marginalization that included seeing members from other similar churches beaten, denied jobs, denied goods and services from business, or even murdered because of the victim’s race. Of course, those who live in privilege need only to pay attention to their inner spiritual state and whether they were breaking some taboo.
LikeLike
Curt,
You certainly read the hearts of those you deem as privileged don’t you! So while you finally acknowledge it (liberation theology) is a completely false gospel you are now making the driving issue that we get together and sing Kumbaya and learn from one another ??? So while it is utterly false we have a lot to learn from it? Wow! Ok. Is our next round of conversation going to be something like…..”it all depends on what the definition of is, is?” I think we should probably wrap this up.
Understanding that the gospel preached by liberation theology is a false gospel and that the signed document in question from Dr. Hart’s original post is indeed very representative of liberation/ social gospel/ social justice theology is the issue here. Furthermore the original document ( as well as movements like it) openly tie it into the gospel. This is a misguided idea that we can “be or do the gospel”.
Watch this for more Biblical view of what the Gospel is>> http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/what-is-the-gospel1
This is yet again evidence as to why conversation with you is difficult, your incongruence is really staggering. It is why sdb won’t get any where with you , any more than I. You state you understand ..”the gospel preached by liberation theology is a false gospel”, but then have an entire theological life and world view (evidenced at your blog) which believes we have oh soooo much to learn from liberation theology. Indeed this is the driver in your theology. Again your compulsive need to synchronize incompatible theologies is evident.
No we do not have much to learn from them, just some things we can agree on. Did Paul have “much” he needed to learn from the judaizers? Did Moses have “much” to learn from the Egyptian gods? I could certainly say that many of their (liberation theology) justice, human dignity in God’s image, respect for all classes and races, etc. are a good things. I can certainly agree with their concern over a Christian heart of care for those marginalized. But I did not learn that from liberation theology. I learned it from a Christian training, etc. etc. …..I learned it from a white “privileged” WWII vet grandfather who as a manager of a retail grocery store in the 1950’s when confronted with concerns from African American’s in his community about how…. “Mr. Burns we know we need to enter through the back door””, he responded….”My friends go through the front door.” At his great cost. (This is the part where you jump in and say he has no idea what cost is) I have no delusions of grandeur (nor did my Grandfather) that my grandfather experienced the deep societal marginalization to the degree that his African-American neighbors did in 1950. He was white, he was in no way marginalized to the degree that African Americans were at that time. It is your extremism that I cannot fully get behind, though I emphathize and respect (even to your surprise have supported) some of your concerns. It is your using the easy accepted “moral outrage” of 2017 and applying it as if those situations were as bad as 1950. It is your sly distortion of the gospel that I object to.
That said, once again your conclusions are completely driven by your extreme activism socialist liberation theological worldview ( I don’t mind using that term worldview) not from exegesis of the Bible. No sir, I cannot in good conscience get behind their (liberation theology) “different gospel”! (Galattans 1) You get behind it far to much, it is indeed your driver. I want to believe the best of your motives and your love for Christ, but you are in error.
“”While the theology of the cross may be believed, these movements are actually emptying it of its meaning.””
What we win them with, we win them to. Let us make sure it is the Christ of Scripture, not the Jesus according to Howard Zinn.
LikeLike
E. Burns,
What do you mean I finally acknowledged the false gospel of Liberation Theology? What about you acknowledging the specifics of what we have to learn from Liberation Theology.
And what did I say about the hearts of the privileged? What I am referring to but did not make clear is difference in sermon content between those churches whose members live in privileged circumstances vs those churches whose members are marginalized. This is observational data, not a claim to know any hearts–though I was not clear enough in saying that in my last comment.
Finally, you can’t even specify what my socialist views are. For if you could, you would find that I am much more of a moderate socialist and, by Rosa Luxemburg’s standards, would be considered more of a believer in a bourgeoisie democracy than a socialist. So while you pretend to know what sociallism and my views are, the truth is that you have no clue regarding either. And you’re too phobic to really investigate the issue lest you discover something from Socialism with which you might agree.
See, a 2ker like D.G. would acknowledge that, as individuals, Christians can work with nonChristians in building a better society. That is a basic tenet of 2KT. Where I disagree with 2KT is in its tenets that prohibit the Church as an institution from addressing corporate sins. For 2kers, that would mean that I would be a transformationalist, but I am not. For a basic tenet of transformationalism is that the Church merits a privileged place in society for establishing some degree of Christian rule over society. Transformationalists correctly, IMO, believe that the Church, as an institution, should address the state’s and society’s corporate sins, but they go too far in doing so. BTW, if you read Keller, what you find is that his kind of transformationalism, in some instances, results in the same kind of relationship between the Church as an institution has with society as 2Kers believe the Church should have with the state and society. For while he is not shy in supporting the Church in in its opposition to racism, he is a practical 2Ker when it comes to the Church addressing the injustices of our economic classism.
But see, all of the above pertains to discussing how Christians should share society with others. Thus, the above is a practical theology issue, not a preaching of the Gospel issue.
LikeLike
Curt,
Then why did the original liberation theology document signed by nemureous academics make it a gospel issue?
(You need to go read it again, because they clearly do, but you know that don’t you)
Your incongruence and sly slight of hand (studied ambiguity) is showing again. But then again the document in question uses the same sly tactics. Birds of a feather.
LikeLike
E.Burns,
Actually, your misconceptions about what other believe as well as your all-or-nothing thinking is what is the problem. That liberation theology misunderstands the Gospel does not negate everything it states. And your pretending to know what socialism is about is obvious to anyone who has studied it.
The same goes for your understanding of Liberation Theology. What in the statement that D.G. quoted above or in the whole statement from the source belongs exclusively to Liberation Theology? Do you really think that mere expressions of solidarity provides an exhaustive description of Liberation Theology?
And what about the people from conservative institutions who have signed on? These institutions include Biblical Theological Seminary, BIOLA, Calvin College, Moody Bible Institute, Oral Roberts University, and Wheaton College. These institutions serve as the center of Liberation Theology? In fact, I know one of the people who signed the document and that person is not even close to being counted as a follower of Liberation Theology. Isn’t it possible that some of the things said in Liberation Theology can also be said by any Bible believing Christian?
And what are the Gospel issues they bring up that have not been brought up by either the Old or New Testaments? BTW, here, you should remember that the Gospel is veiled in the Old Testament? What does Jesus say in the parables of the sheep and the goats or in the one of the Good Samaritan? What does John say in his epistles about not loving our brothers and sisters or neglecting those who are in need while we have resources? Or what passage from Isaiah does Jesus read to being his ministry?
You really need to study subjects like Socialism and Liberation Theology before trying to make public judgements you made here. Because all you have shown here is the misuse of logic and an ignorance of what you are talking about.
LikeLike
Curt,
So now they are Gospel issues? Is it providence or is it being and doing the gospel, please make up your mind Curt. You need to understand definitions before you make judgements.
Solidarity : Unity, fuller agreement, common ground, mutual working together.
No Curt, those of us who come from a more Confessional Reformed perspective do not have that kind of Unity with Liberation theology any more than we do with Benny Hinn. It is a different gospel as well as practical theology. Yes, we may agree with some of their concerns but what you were asking for is a whole other story. No Curt, your total un-biblical understanding of the gospel is the problem here. It is not our understanding of socialism which is the issue here, it is your understanding of the Biblical Gospel which is the problem. I have already answered your questions. Your words really give a deep seeking of justice and such a peaceful feeling, makes me want to share society with others, so impressive. Your social sense of community, peace and justice stops the second someone opposes your ideas. It is not that I or others do not understand these issues, or your secret sauce socialism (easily accessible at your boring blog), it is not that we haven’t answered or clarified, it is that we do not agree with or affirm you and your comrades that pisses you off. Talk about all or nothing thinking.
You state….What about the people who signed from “conservative institutions” ? (You really only think about what you are going to say next and don’t listen, did you not notice way back when I said one of my children is a student at one of these schools, I personally know some of these signers) As if Conservative institutions are monolithic? Ha! I thought you liked nuance. No what you like (insist on really) is full adherence to your world view and perspective. You’re going to make a great party Leader some day Curt, all the makings, giftings and talents are there. Of course many academics at those “conservative” places are lefty’s and radical activists like you. They have nuanced leanings etc. as do I. We often discuss, though we disagree. Unlike in your ideal circles it is OK to not follow the party line in “conservative institutions”.
There you go again, back to your secret sauce. This is not about Curt’s ideal socialism, not all about your vision of social gospel fullfilment, not ultimately, but for you that is the ultimate issue here, that which all of life revolves around. Which is why you insist I and others agree with and affirm your position. (after all if we don’t agree with you, we are the privileged class that are keeping you down) It is the reason you keep driving everything back to that. It is your center, that is clear. Yes, we can agree with some concerns that socialist, liberation theology, and all manner of other groups have. That is not the same thing as allowing those movements to be the drivers via the extremism that you embrace. Where did Paul or Jesus ever make the thrust of their ministry what one will see at your blog? Jesus the community organizer, the Labour leader. Please!! That is a Jesus created in your own image Curt. That is just as bad as the Pathetic Rush Limbaugh Jesus of the right wing evangelicals. Not good when the right or the left drives the train. You state elsewhere that you do not believe that neither the proletariat or the bourgeoisie should be the driver. Nice sounding rhetoric and lip service on your part, but that is hard to believe considering the core of what you keep driving at and what your blog reveals. Constant pseudo intellectual protest, easy moral outrage and activism is your bourgeoisie, the capital you will only trade in, your gospel. I am not a consumer in your economy, count me out.
The Gospel is not the pseudo intellectual liberation activism that you have embraced and which you insist on any more than it is a Rush Limbaugh version of it is. Just repeating ourselves, getting no where here. Like I say, we need to wrap this up. You can have the last word Curt.
Grace and Peace
LikeLike
E. Burns,
Why are you so always aggressive? My first opinion was based on what was merely quoted above. My change simply came from reading the whole document. And my last view simply says that how we treat others must reflect how we have been treated by God in the Gospel–which is a view I’ve always had.
But it isn’t a Gospel issue in terms of redefining the Gospel. There is no alternative salvation being offered or some alternative means of salvation being defined in the document in question. There is merely an expression of solidarity with marginalized people. So tell me, based on how God has treated you in the Gospel, why would you oppose that expression of solidarity? What in the Scriptures would make you opposed to showing concern with those who are marginalized either by race, economics, religion, etc? And if your claim about those who come from a confessional reformed perspective are true, then why, again, do signers of that document include people Calvin College or Biblical Theological Seminary? Don’t those signatures provide a counterexample to your claim?
And consider the criticism I provided of your views. You are approaching this liberation theology perspective from an all-or-nothing viewpoint as if liberation theology has everything to learn from your particular confessional position and your position has everything to teach. On the other hand, you admit that there can be some common concerns. That seems like a mixed message.
But as for your question about Paul or Jesus and their preaching, please answer the following. Did Paul only preach and teach on what Jesus said or did he preach and teach on more than what Jesus said? Aren’t there historical differences between the times of Jesus and Paul that moved Paul to preach on what Jesus did not cover in His preaching? So now, what about the changes in history that have occurred since the preaching of Paul? Wasn’t Paul determined to spread the Gospel throughout the world that knew nothing of it? And how does that apply to us since the Gospel has already been spread throughout the world. But not only that, the Gospel has been associated with injustices because of what some nations have done to other nations and people in the name of the Gospel. That wasn’t the case in Paul’s time.
It seems that what is allowed by your theology is only that which was explicitly stated or could be imitated by Jesus and Paul. But times have changed. For not only has the Gospel been spread throughout the world and the Gospel has been dishonored by what some governments have done in the name of Jesus, we have democracies. And what was explicitly stated or shown by example by Jesus or Paul which tells us Christians how we should interact in a democracy? There is nothing in the preaching of either one telling us whether we should even vote let alone for whom to vote. And there is nothing their preaching that would tell us that we could run for office.
But even on your own terms, Jesus told the parables of the sheep and the goats or the Good Samaritan because He was unconcerned with the marginalized and those who were victimized? Or Paul was unconcerned with the poor despite saying the opposite in Galatians 2? And isn’t the neglect of the marginalized condemned by the OT prophets?
Just because D.G. and you find no merit in the “liberation theology” document cited above, doesn’t mean that no person from a legitimate Reformed Confessional perspective can’t find merit. But more important than what the Reformed Confessional perspective says is this: What in the Scriptures prohibit us from showing solidarity with the marginalized? Look at what Jesus read from Isaiah to introduce His ministry.
BTW, most of your comments are not really addressing the issues here. Rather, they seem to be more of an exercise in trying to put down someone you disagree with. And in that, you are imitating Rush Limbaugh.
LikeLike
You are mistaken about Ray van Arragon Hw DID sign. In fact this is how I came here following a link from an article from him ecplaining why he signex…despite his reservations
LikeLike