Why I Wouldn’t Sign (if I were evangelical)

Published on by D. G. Hart

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.

127 thoughts on “Why I Wouldn’t Sign (if I were evangelical)”

  1. “Outrage is easy. So is moral posturing.”

    There’s nothing more relaxing than moral posturing. Is there anyone on this list who did not vote for a Democrat in any presidential election? Is this the Evangelical Left version of #Resist? All I see are third-rate pseudo intellectuals from 3rd tier universities. And to see so many from Wheaton (Evangelicalism’s answer to Harvard) does not surprise me since so many of their faculty seemed confused on whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

    The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Pretty much anything, anything coming out of academia now you can bank on as being annoyingly stilted. I wouldn’t sign because, well… why sign any of this predictably craptastic stuff by scholars explicating Scripture like they have some sort of paps mandate. It suggests an inflated sense of self-importance. And it assumes all we have some sort of obligation to save the world via policy, versus loving the neighbor next to us. Hey, if you want to help someone, go open your own wallet and do so. Don’t ask the government to further take from mine. That’s not rendering unto Caesar, it’s being abused by your feel-good, busybody Christian overtures. Anyone familiar with the über-affluent D.C. suburbs should gag at the suggestion the government needs more of anything.

    As for Gehrz, the only truths foundational to christian faith are the ones encapsulated in “The Son of God died for sinners and rose from the dead.” The Genesis mandate stuff… the more it is ballyhooed the more contrived it sounds, especially coming from a crowd that really doesn”t even believe that Genesis is more than Jewish folklore.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. If all there is is moral posturing and outrage, then signing the statement could be done for appearances sake. But is what the statement says biblical? And if so, then isn’t the beginning of our response to these conditions moral posturing and outrage? And considering what is going on in the world that is generally touched on in the statement, isn’t the lack of outrage and moral posturing an indication that something is wrong with us? After all, this isn’t an all-or-nothing situation where one either chooses moral indifference or moral overreach.

    Like

  6. “This isn’t an all-or-nothing situation where one either chooses moral indifference or moral overreach.” No, nor is it a “‘We’ *have* to do something” situation when we are talking national politics versus the church’s mission. It is moral overreach to paint economic or military or environmental policies in black-and-white terms when they involve prudential judgements. Especially when those pronouncing are not specialists, and the fields in question are not laboratory sciences. And when we have no currently operating prophets who can boast of canonical status (unless Catholics want to invoke Francis). Which is why statements that suggest otherwise provoke in me not outrage by exasperation.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Usually educators don’t know this. That is the thing about movements like this, behind them one usually finds teachers (their unions), politicians, academics and all manner of net tax receivers. These folks have absolutely zero limits to the generosity of other people’s money. How big of them! Being a net tax producer and living in that world, it is tough to justify these bleeding heart dreams. Nice work, if you can get it. The USA is getting to the point where about 50% plus of us (to some degree or another/ households) are net tax receivers.

    Like

  10. The net tax receiver vs. net tax producer problem is far and away a bigger problem than is the national debt. Can’t dig out without enough producers.

    Like

  11. Paul,
    Some sins are corporate sins and some are personal sins. And how responsible we are for the former depends on how we have responded to society regarding those sins. Here we should note what then General Eisenhower did when his troops happened upon the Nazi death camps. He had his troops escort the nearby townspeople through those camps so they could see what their nation did. Not all were guilty. After all, some hid Jews on their property or in other locations while others resisted the Nazis through writings. Others tried to end the regime. But to sit by passively when one knew or could easily know what was happening did not imply innocence of the crimes committed by their government.

    Like

  13. Curt:

    This country has done a great deal to address all of the grievances listed. Although, we haven’t done much to stop out of wedlock childbirths. That is the fast track to economic disparity. I am disgusted by that state of affairs yet I have gone out of my way to aid unwed mothers. I’m not sure any of those women would be impressed were I to sign the national confession of guilt. Does anybody think God will be impressed?

    Re: IKE, I prefer the British SAS response when they encountered death camps. They summarily executed the Nazi’s. Nobody questioned where the SAS stood. The captive Jews were grateful. I doubt the Jews felt very much satisfaction when the German citizenry paraded through the camps to look at a bunch of emaciated bodies behind barbed wire fences. Treating Nazi victims as if they had zero human dignity . . . has anybody apologized for that yet?

    Like

  14. Paul,
    Poverty wages and offshoring are other fast tracks to economic disparity. And yet, what is our nation doing about both?

    What specific grievances has our nation done a great deal to address?

    BTW the British SAS response does not address what is said to the German population of those towns.

    Like

  15. E. Burns,
    And I wonder how many of those who would sign the Cambridge Declaration would sign on to the statement contained in the above article. Should any of us play the role of the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying?

    Like

  16. Curt:

    The most impoverished demographic in the U.S. consists of single mothers.

    LBJ past sweeping legislation.

    Killing the Nazi’s sent the message and everyone in the town understood. The message was, if you do evil, you will pay for it. You should ask some holocaust survivors what was more impactful to them — IKE parading a bunch of Germans in front of them as if the Jews had no human dignity or the SAS blowing the brains out of the Jewish captors.

    Lastly, the “Sins of the nation document” is nothing but weak, pathetic, posturing. I hope it makes somebody feel good. You should get together with some of them, build a business, pay “good” wages and out compete those operating offshore. I will gladly support that.

    Like

  17. Curt,
    Of course no one should play the Pharisee. The fact you think those who don’t sign this or agree with it are the Pharisse’s or the bigger part of the problem speaks to the issue of how imbedded the “Social gospel” has become.

    I believe one of the signed statements is better that the other. (Cambridge Declaration) I believe that one strikes at the core of the true Biblical gospel. I believe the 2 signed statements are very opposite in their idea of what the Gospel essentially is.

    That said, I do not believe that two opposite contradictory views can both be true. Maybe you do, which is a whole other problem if that is the case. In fact many times with situations like this that is exactly the case.
    My son attends one of the schools which has a large contingency of signers. While I don’t doubt good motives or their Christian sincerity, nor do I sit in haughty judgement over them, they are elevated items to the essential category which should not be. I greatly question their idea or understanding of what the gospel is. I flat out getting the gospel wrong. IE.. “Social gospel.”

    Getting the gospel wrong is no small thing. The Gospel goes way beyond filling bellies, women rights or making sure everyone has good wages. Eternal significance. Getting it wrong leads to false conversions in droves. What good is it for woman kind to gain the world of felt needs, only to lose their souls? What you don’t seem to grasp about those of us critical of movements like this (or critical of Tim Keller types) is not so much that we doubt their Christian sincerity let alone their Savation, it is their net results for the Kingdom that can be so awful. While they look good in the populist church growth department, if they are winning people to a false gospel and false Jesus then folks are still dead in sin. This is essentially the Howard Zinn/ left leaning version of the church growth movement of the 1980’s, false conversions will abound. What we win them with we win them too. Do you really want people won to a Jesus who is a labor leader, environmental activist, anymore than Jesus the Republican business leader/ military general? Do you really believe Jesus the hippie social justice King is the essential truth of who He is?

    I have read Howard Zinn and his misguided types. I would encourage you to read Evangelicalism Divided by Ian Murray or perhaps some of Dr. Harts books on revivalism. Perhaps RC Sproul’s book, “Getting the Gospel Right” Or J. Gresham Machen’s. “Christianity and Liberalism”

    But you have probably already read these and just disagree. ??

    Like

  18. ‘Many in the church growth (or social justice movement) movement believe that sociological understanding of those in the pew is as important to the success of the gospel as is the biblical truth which is proclaimed. As a result, theological convictions are frequently divorced from the work of the ministry. The marketing orientation in many churches takes this even further, erasing the distinction between the biblical Word and the world, robbing Christ’s cross of its offense, and reducing Christian faith to the principles and methods which bring success to secular corporations” or to “”social activism movements”

    Again, just the Howard Zinn version of the church growth movement of the 1980’s. I reject both.

    Like

  19. “”While the theology of the cross may be believed, these movements are actually emptying it of its meaning. There is no gospel except that of Christ’s substitution in our place whereby God imputed to him our sin and imputed to us his righteousness. Because he bore our judgment, we now walk in his grace as those who are forever pardoned, accepted and adopted as God’s children. There is no basis for our acceptance before God except in Christ’s saving work, not in our patriotism, churchly devotion or moral decency. The gospel declares what God has done for us in Christ. It is not about what we can do to reach him.””

    Like

  20. E. Burns,
    First, you completely misunderstood me about signing this. I never said anything about those not wanting to sign the agreement. After all, what the Pharisee did was to lift himself up while putting the publican down. And so the pharisee could be someone who would sign the agreement or the Cambridge declaration or neither or both. The pharisee lifts up himself up while putting others down. In one’s own eyes, the pharisee talks about others as he/she really doesn’t need grace because of their goodness. So anyone who admires what they have done or the group(s) they have joined can be the pharisee from the parable of the two men praying.

    Second, what you believe is fine, we can discuss that for as long as neither of us don’t look down on the other for our differences. My opinion is that that is what is needed the most. I think there are certain traits within the conservative Church that prevents it members from exploring ideas that, though they are very possibly biblical, are new to the traditions and past and present heroes of the faith. Those traits also interfere with discussing our differences. This is what Jesus said to the Pharisees about corban comes into play. A loveless approach to traditions and the Scriptures allowed the pharisees to excuse themselves from truly honoring their parents. Likewise, pride in belonging to our traditions, which are our confessions of faith and the catechisms, might interfere with what it means to love one’s neighbor today. I am not saying that everyone who refuses to sign on the statement of empathy shown above does so out of pride, but those who do are acting like the pharisees whom Jesus confronted. This loveless approach to adhering to our traditions while forgetting about what the Scriptures say about love and justice is also a perversion of the Gospel.

    And so with Machen, what you see is a black-white thinking approach to anything that could be considered either liberal or leftist–Howard Zinn was a leftist, not a liberal. Machen was 100% correct in condemning the reductionism employed by theological liberals that eliminated the supernatural from the Bible. But that doesn’t mean that every liberal concern or statement was wrong. This is where Machen, perhaps from his own experiences in the Presbyterian Church, overreached in criticizing liberalism. It is as if Machen was saying, using a Martin Luther King Jr. phraseology, that he and his fellow conservatives had everything to teach liberals and nothing to learn from them. Now we might come to that attitude from different experiences, but how different is that attitude from the attitude that the pharisee had from the parable of the two men praying?

    So if you want to disagree with Zinn, fine. But itemize your disagreements and honestly consider whether some of his observations are true.

    As for your following statement:


    Many in the church growth (or social justice movement) movement believe that sociological understanding of those in the pew is as important to the success of the gospel as is the biblical truth which is proclaimed.

    it seems as if you are approaching any sociological understanding of people in a black-white manner. What if we said that a sociological understanding of those in the pew is vital to effectively communicating the Gospel but is not as important as biblical truth? Would there be some sociological assessments of those in the pew which you would consider to be helpful? Or would adding a sociological understanding of those in the pew present you with a one-and-many problem with regards to our Apostolic faith?

    Finally, I don’t know of any evangelicals who would sign on to the statement of empathy cited above who are looking to replace or change the Gospel that proclaims that faith in Christ, for who he really is, and His substitution for our sins is the only way to the Father. What I see is that Christians are struggling with the issue of how they are to share society with others. Should they abstain from society because the issues that society deals with include items other than the need to believe in order to be saved? Should Christians seek a position of supremacy over others in society so they can control the laws being passed? Or should Christians seek to share society with others as equals? The answers we arrive at will greatly affect our effectiveness in sharing the Gospel with unbelievers. At the same time, perhaps we should not be afraid of the observations unbelievers make of us so that we could use their input to help us be better communicators. For example, consider the observation Lenin made in 1905 of the Christians he saw:


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

    Certainly, he has perspectives that control his perception of reality which w must reject as Christians. However, not everything he wrote there should be ignored. For if the wealthy are oppressing others, isn’t it our duty both as fellow citizens and as Christians to point out where they are hurting others?

    Like

  21. Paul,
    First, you would need to documentation for your claims there. And your statement by itself implies nothing because the issue of single parenting is very complex one. But let’s assume your statement is true, does that mean that we ignore all other demographic groups of impoverished people.

    As for LBJ’s war on poverty, realize that fewer people live in poverty as a result of his programs. But even in the middle of that war, Martin Luther King Jr. saw a competing loyalty that would prevent LBJ’s programs from being more effective. That competing loyalty was militarism and the war in Vietnam. He saw the resources required by militarism and the war in Vietnam as having seriously hurt the efforts made in the war on poverty.

    Finally, your assessment of ‘The Sins Of The Nation’ document is too broad to comment on. You need to list the specifics as to why you view it the way you do.

    Like

  22. Curt, if everything was black and white for Machen, then why did he oppose prayer and Bible reading in public schools? Why, that’s liberal!

    Please read more about Machen before using him as an example. Also, don’t pretend to know Mencken.

    And now that I think about it, you may want to brush up on Presbyterianism.

    Like

  23. Curt,

    No strictly black or white dogmatism from me. I am no ‘Fox News-Jesus was a Republican culture warrior. I want to affirm your best motives for Christ. I do not seek to to misunderstand you. However, You are the one who used the term “Pharisee”. Furthermore you did so in a fashion and with a studied ambiguity that implied something. You are implying it with with a moral superiority to boot.

    IE…..those opposed to movements like this are leaning in the Pharisee direction. To deny that was your implication is to be intellectually dishonest, at least about how you communicated it. If that is not what you mean, then you need to communicate better, that’s on you. I will stop and give grace for that, as I know I am no perfect communicator. Brother, I wish no advancement of ill will between our differing views, but let’s have some intellectual honesty, enough to just acknowledge to opposing points of view. Which is why I will openly admit that I believe the trajectory of the signed “commitment” document gets the gospel wrong.

    All that said, The statement you site in bold is not mine it is from the Cambridge Declaration. Despite you claiming the contrary, the problem with the tactics you lefty’s use is that you insist everyone affirm your views. When they don’t they are viewed as morally “lessor” (Imperialist, misogynists, racists, etc.) I am inclined it is better to just acknowledge we disagree, sometimes (for some of us) those disagreements are radical. I am OK acknowledging those disagreements exists, I don’t feel compelled to synchronize them, nor do I believe that is narrow it un- nuanced thinking as you seem to believe. As Machen rightly pointed out, in this discussion there are two very different religions very often. I am not saying that is for sure the case with you and I. But in the case of the Cambridge Declaration VS. the document sited by Dr. Hart, (and sir, please acknowledge the gravity of its title…. Confession and Commitment ) they are incompatible with one another in the sense of what their main thrust is, as it relates to the Essential heart of the Gospel. That does not mean that I think all the individuals who have signed it are not sincere believers. Nor does that mean I look down my nose denying the human dignity of those who disagree with me. What leftist tend towards is to insist that those in my (like minded) position shift to be more agreeable to their position. You, and this document in question signed by many academics, seem content to claim moral superiority or the moral high ground. You can claim it all day long, as you’re doing here, but it doesn’t make it so.

    I do acknowledge the thinkers in the leftists camp, some have valid points. I can even acknowledge elements of truth in the quote you site from Lenin.
    Yes, with vigor, let us acknowledge and improve (and western society has in large degree), many of these issues, it is quite another thing to be fully on board with the overall trajectory of those thinkers or movements like this one that so many academics have signed their names to.
    Dr. Hart rightly pointed out this signed statement doesn’t acknowledge a conservatives point of view at all! So it hardly exhibits the Hegelian Dialectic you are so proudly insisting that I or others have. Your nuanced (non black and white) thinking is ankle deep. You (and this statement and movements like it) are just using the classic, boring and old tactic that so many “liberals” use…..
    …..if your opponents are not willing to follow your ideas and acknowledge them, affirm them, show more acquiescence and agreement with them, then one is a bigot, unloving, does not care about the planet, etc. etc,

    You state:
    “”I don’t know of any evangelicals who would sign on to the statement of empathy cited above who are looking to replace or change the Gospel that proclaims that faith in Christ, for who he really is.”” You are not paying attention. Besides as the Cambridge Declaration right points out…..“”While the theology of the cross may be believed, these movements are actually emptying it of its meaning.”

    Best as I see it (although this side of heaven through a glass dimly lit) at the end of the day you just seem to be engaging in a whole lot of Syncretism in order to advance your liberation theology and social justice theology. Your motives might be as pure as the wind driven snow, but you are still wrong.

    Like

  24. D.G.,
    There can be more than one reason to oppose prayer in school. And thus, people from more than one group can oppose it as well. To give an example from my neck of the woods. Russia’s capitalists opposed Lenin’s rule. But so did socialists like Rosa Luxemburg. Did opposing Lenin mean that Russia’s capitalists and Luxemburg adhered to the same ideology?

    Like

  25. Curt,

    It is not so much that Christians are in a deep struggle with “how to share society with others” (as if Christians own or control society) as much as guys like you struggle with how you can make your socialistic redistribution plans a reality.
    Case in point, the leftist Evironmental movement, sure some of them are concerned about about being good stewards of the earth (so am I) , but mostly it is just the home for displaced socialist to advance those agendas.

    Like

  26. E. Burns,
    Yes, the issue is about how we will share society with others. If you will note, for much of our nation’s history, as well as the history of many European nations, the predominant branch of the Church played a major role in determining the laws of the nation in which they lived. Here in America, many laws that were on the books were there because of the influence the Church had on society at the time. Our nation’s blue laws are primary examples.

    But if you want to talk about redistribution, realize that the center of Marxist Socialism is the proletariat dictatorship. As for redistribution, let me ask this question: How much of James Madison’s wealth morally belonged to him since he owned slaves? Now I am not asking how much of it legally belonged to him; I am asking how much of it morally belonged to him. And what if what over the 90% of the scientists who are convinced that climate change is being caused by man’s activity is true? Are some resisting that fact because the only way by which we can address wealth dispariy and our environmental problems at the same time is to talk about some kind of redistribution of wealth. Why is it Christian to oppose every kind of redistribution of wealth? What did James say in the 5th chapter of his epistle?

    Like

  27. Curt,

    I did not say it is Christian to oppose all redistribution. Is it Christian to fully embrace Communism or Socialism? I just believe Capitalism is a better system than the Socialist / Communist type you affirm. Society has rightfully corrected the ills of James Madison as far as slavery is concerned and it did not need to reject Capitalism in order to get there. Do you deny tremendous progress in society and culture on many of the fronts so dear to your gospel –race relations, environment, economics, medicine, standard of living, general quality of life???

    Sharing is nice, but the perfect ideal utopia you are shooting for is called heaven. We ain’t there yet. No, the ultimate issue in the universe , the highest order of things is not “sharing” and to make it such in the context of the Christian religion is to indeed expose exactly what this phrase from the Cambridge Declaration is striking at……. “While the theology of the cross may be believed, these movements are actually emptying it of its meaning.”

    On this issue, You need a theology of creativity more than you need a theology of liberation. You need to think about sustainable solutions, not just robbing people through confiscatory government regulations and policies. In other words the only way to really help the poor (at least when we’re talking about tangible ways of feeding their bellies advancing their place in society) is to harness the potential of innovative new wealth creation which does lead to all kinds of other advancements. You (like all socialists) have bought into this idea that there is a set amount of wealth in the world that cannot be increased and must therefore be fairly distributed / shared. So who is going to decide how that is done, you? The government? The church? God created a world with far more potential in this area than you give credit, granted its a fallen world, but your solutions lead Oneida, New York “Bible Communism” which in the end did give us good silverware but not good life or economic solutions. Capitalism and Free Enterprise are not perfect (nor are they more Christian automatically and they sure don’t fix sin in a fallen world), but they are better for the larger mass of people. Contrary to the Howard Zinn school of thought history has indeed shown this.

    Worse than any political misguided ideas you have, the worst is your distortion of the Biblical gospel. Just admit it, you really believe Jesus the hippie social justice King is the essential truth of who He is.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. D.G.,
    I simply gave you an example of how tow distinct groups could oppose the same thing so that opposition to that thing doesn’t meant that two individuals necessarily belongs to the same group. Thus Machen and liberals could oppose school prayer but such did not imply Machen was a liberal.

    As for your next questions, the answer to the first one is yes. The answer to the second question is that Christ fulfilled all my moral obligations and so I am called to love my neighbor and to love fellow believers. So are you called to love all fellow believers?

    Like

  31. E. Burns,
    Do you even know what Socialism is in order to oppose it? Or are you reacting to some stereotyped pejorative?

    Did you realize that Socialism, like Capitalism, is not a monolith? That there are various forms of socialism. And did you know that Socialism from the Marxist tradition’ has as it basic tenet proletariat dictatorship, not the egalitarian redistribution of wealth?

    If you take a look at today’s Capitalism, it is different from the Capitalism that followed WW II. That capitalism is called the Bretton Woods system. In that system, governments had far more control of a nation’s economy than today’s neoliberalism. Thus Capitalist economies under the Bretton Woods System were more responsive to the government of a given nation in which Capitalism was being implemented. In working democracies, that means that businesses were made accountable to democratic processes.

    Under neoliberalism, not only are businesses less and less accountable to democratic governments, governments become accountable to business. That makes business elites the ruling class of any nation. And in neoliberal globalism, that makes any government more and more accountable to business elites whether those business elites were from a given government’s own nation or not. And in neoliberal capitalism, what you also have is a growing wealth disparity. As a result, supporters of neoliberal capitalism rank the capitalist economies of nations by comparing the wealthy of the nations being ranked. BTW, both forms of Capitalism in America are heavily subsidized by the state.

    Undoubtedly social progress has been made here though our state of being is very volatile at the present moment. The questios are how did that progress come about and how much progress has really been made.That progress did not come about from the natural flow of Capitalism. War ended slavery and social movements have challenged Jim Crow and subsequent racism. But economic classism is rarely even partially addressed so that more and more people no longer consider America as a democracy. Rather they see it as being ruled by those with wealth. And when those with wealth follow the example set in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged or join Cain as he rhetorically asked the Creator if he was his brother’s keeper, you set up the conditions of rebellion, which I do not advocate, and when the Church sides with wealth, as it did prior to the revolutions in France, Russia, and Spain, the Church ends up unnecessarily persectuted and the Gospel is dishonored. That is because what you find in the economies where such ethics were pursued is the common practice of the wealthy robbing from the lower classes.

    See, the basic assumption in your declaration that what is needed is creativity over liberation is that wealth is being fairly distributed. When it isn’t being fairly distributed, one needs liberation though we should note that there are righteous ways of liberating and there are unrighteous ways of liberating people. See, when wealth is not being fairly distributed, that is when it is being consolidated, those with wealth have also consolidated power. And that power must be challenged. When you get to what Martin Luther King Jr. saw, you find that Capitalism’s unfair distribution of wealth held in check any battles that could waged against racism, militarism, and economic exploitation. And that was under the more benign form of Capitalism–the Bretton Woods System.

    So far, the advancements you have noted from your Capitalist system are materialistic advances only. They do not include advances in the relationships between different groups of people.The lack of improvement in the relationships between different groups of people within nations result, at the minimum, in civil unrest. The lack of improvement in relationships in people across borders can lead to wars and tyranny. For example, to introduce neoliberal capitalism in Chile and Argentina, coups had to be staged and military dictatorships had to be installed because the democracies there opposed that form of Capitalism. In England, it was imposed following the Faulkland Ilands War. In Russia, Yeltsin had to order the military to attack its Parliament building. And now Russia is ruled by an “elected” dictator. The change here came more gradual but it spiked following the 9/11 attacks.

    And not only all of that, opulent ways of life in different nations is now endangering the environment for future generations. And under Trump, is not even being acknowledged. That is because to acknowledge it, would necessitate changes in our way of life–or, to be more precise, our preferred way of business where wealth disparity continues to grow.

    So even if your Capitalism is a preferred to what you call Socialism, you economic system is not heading toward a good destination. In addition, since you really have no concept of my political beliefs, you seem to have no understanding of by Biblical views. And so your accusations at the end are false. They rely more on pejorative stereotypes than on any real understanding.

    Like

  32. Curt,

    Well aware that all thought in the camps of socialism are not monolithic. Yes, (pat head pinch cheek with Condescension right back at him here) I know what socialism is. But, I had no idea you had found its perfect strand or version, how enlightening. I made no claims that a capitalistic system is a catch all, that is your pejorative toward me. Yes, I read enough of your blog (to taste the sea, one only need a few drops) to come to the reasonable conclusion that you basically believe Jesus the hippie social justice King, the activist, liberation theology is the essential truth of who He and his gospel is. Now, you may want to pitch that in a different light, fine blog away, but it is there at your blog for the world to see.

    Brother, I don’t doubt your motives. I just think your system of economics and theology are wrong. Furthermore, I think that they lead to worse things than you seem to admit to. No perfect system out there, but in this case we differ as to which one we think is best for the most people.

    Like

  33. E. Burns,
    Sorry, but when you write:


    Worse than any political misguided ideas you have, the worst is your distortion of the Biblical gospel. Just admit it, you really believe Jesus the hippie social justice King is the essential truth of who He is.

    or


    But, I had no idea you had found its perfect strand or version, how enlightening. I made no claims that a capitalistic system is a catch all, that is your pejorative toward me. Yes, I read enough of your blog (to taste the sea, one only need a few drops) to come to the reasonable conclusion that you basically believe Jesus the hippie social justice King, the activist, liberation theology is the essential truth of who He and his gospel is.

    you strong evidence that you don’t know what you are talking about. But since you claim to know what socialism is, why did Luxemburg oppose Lenin? BTW, I never claimed to have a found a perfect strain. But of course you should have recognized that since you would know that not all Socialists believe in utopia. But it does seem that many Capitalists believe in a relative utopia. BTW, have you found a perfect strain of Capitalism?

    Like

  34. Curt:

    Sins ARE NOT national. I reject your premise and that of the knuckleheads with nothing better to do who proposed such a nonsensical diatribe.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. DG: The Russians helped Machen overcome the Presbyterian Church on his way to establishing the OPC.

    Like

  37. Paul,
    So the Nazi invasions of its neighbors and its persecution of the Jews were not sins? And if they were sins, were they not national acts? Or when God, through Amos, pronounces judgement on Israel’s neighbors, He wasn’t judging those nations for national sins?

    The list can go on but this is my problem with your objection. That when people kill and steal as individuals, it is sin. But when they do it in groups, it is not sin.

    But speaking of individual sins, when Jesus warns us about falling people fools in Matthew 5, shouldn’t we take notice? Isn’t it sin when either of us use similar insults on people? Please don’t go that way. You don’t need to be insulting to make your case.

    Like

  39. “That when people kill and steal as individuals, it is sin. But when they do it in groups, it is not sin.”

    Enough with the straw man. When a Nazi (or anyone else) shot, raped, or robbed a Jew (or anyone else), it was a sin. The German kid born in 1935 did not need to confess the sin of being a German. Therefore, it was not a national sin. Being outside of the covenant community under the old covenant was something one should have repented of. That of course changed with the new covenant.

    I am still curious how you appropriate the curses under the old covenant but then talk about homophobia as a negative today (for example). What is your basis? I get how a reconstructionist gets there even if I disagree. I don’t get how progressive Christians get there exegetically. It strikes me as a picking and choosing that aligns with one’s political priors (not so different from the way some on the right appropriate 2 Chronicles 7:14)

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Curt,

    I am making no excuses for sins done to individuals or large groups, whether committed by individuals or large groups. Furthermore I would even acknowledge those sins against humanity over the centuries. How that is ultimately solved however is where we differ. As pointed out by SBD, the kid born in Germany 1940 does not need to “confess” sin of the Nazi party. Would it be good if when he grows up he called it sin, sure. I have clearly stated I dislike many culture warrior activism tactics from the right or the left, so again I am not approaching you as a right wing extreme capitalist lover. There are aspects of the American capitalist system I detest.
    (In fact I really liked the book….”Is the American Dream Killing You”)

    SDB makes a great point here…..
    “It strikes me as a picking and choosing that aligns with one’s political priors (not so different from the way some on the right appropriate 2 Chronicles 7:1″”.

    You have beliefs which seem more driven by socialist activism than by sound Biblical exegesis or Biblical grounded nests. I acknowledge that right wingers do the same, they let their culture warrior politics drive all. Again, as stated before, I object to both. I established in my first post to you that there is no catch all in capitalism of any type, no special secret sauce. Then it was you who have essentially spent the rest of your time stating that if I and others only understood socialism better (or at least the secret sauce you understand and the rest of us just don’t get) we would see the the light. Which one would you like to see implemented in the USA and world wide, Luxemburg or Lenin? Which do you prefer, Curt? Do you really think the difference Luxemburg and Lenin had is the door to understanding?

    Yea yea we get it Rosa Luxemburg’s system thought Lenin’s system was too authoritarian, bigoted/ sectarian (among a few differences) so what!!?? The more important thing is what united them? Answer: worldwide overthrow of capitalism in favor of a socialist system. So again, here is your chance to be perfectly clear, which system to over throw capitalism, seize and redistribute wealth do you prefer Curt? (I already know, I read your blog) The workers of the world await in vast interest to your insight. Curt, is it possible you don’t properly understand capitalism? It’s possible, but I think it is more you just don’t agree with or like it. As sure as I don’t care for socialism. I am OK with those differences. Are you?

    Seriously! This is your lunch pin litmus test? (Luxemburg vs. Lenin) Your I gotch ya moment? No, it is your infinite regress diversion away from dealing with reality when someone disagrees with you and criticizes socialism. Because there is abundant proof of socialism being a vast bigger fail than capitalism this common tactic of…..”Well, you know it just was not done right, that’s all”…. is employed by socialist sympathizers and followers. Sorry, but that is Poppycock!

    By golly I guess two can play at that game…..
    What is Machen’s Birthday? What was the key essential difference between Calvin and Zwingli? If you are not studied on these fine details it proves you know nothing about the Reformation. By your own standard that is.

    I will stand by my statements on your basic trajectory, your view of Jesus and the gospel. You have displayed nothing that proves otherwise and in fact your own blog site makes it clear.

    ““”While the theology of the cross may be believed, these movements are actually emptying it of its meaning. There is no gospel except that of Christ’s substitution in our place whereby God imputed to him our sin and imputed to us his righteousness. Because he bore our judgment, we now walk in his grace as those who are forever pardoned, accepted and adopted as God’s children. There is no basis for our acceptance before God except in Christ’s saving work, not in our patriotism, churchly devotion or moral decency. The gospel declares what God has done for us in Christ. It is not about what we can do to reach him.””

    Like

  41. Curt writes:

    >>>>The list can go on but this is my problem with your objection. That when people kill and steal as individuals, it is sin. But when they do it in groups, it is not sin.<<<<

    I also asked if I was guilty of all the sins mentioned in the weak, feckless and flaccid statement because I am American (that is the group). NO. I am guilty because I am in Adam. Not in America, Britain, France, China, Russia or Haiti. In Adam.

    Don't know where you came up with the idea that I contend that people sinning in groups are not actually committing sin. People commit sins. Therefore, people who sin in groups, commit sin. However, if you and I attend the same Church and you go home and beat your wife, don't try to bring me in on it. See, we can be in a group, you can beat your wife and it can have nothing to do with me. Meanwhile, the holier than thou types that produced a weak, feckless and flaccid statement call me a racist, misogynist, etc. simply because I live in America!

    Rome did some bad things — hint: Rome was comprised of people. People do bad things. I don't remember Paul, a Roman citizen, repenting for the sins of Caligula. Nor do I remember Paul calling the Roman empire to repent. Maybe when Paul was alive, the people who normally do bad things stopped doing those bad things? Surely Paul would have penned something akin to the weak, feckless and flaccid statement we have before us had there been sin in the Roman empire. I think I've read that Rome was full of racism, nativism, misogyny and economic disparity.
    Just probably not during the lifetime of Jesus or the Apostles, right?

    DGH is good at History, maybe he can add some clarity.

    Like

  42. Paul, Curt thinks political authorities are groups of people. That’s how he waves his wand of moral superiority. States kill people legitimately. Persons don’t. One is execution, the other murder.

    I don’t suppose Augustine is in Curt’s playbook.

    Like

  43. D.G.,
    Your claim that I wave my hand moral superiority is merely a diversion. As for political authorities, sometimes they act as individuals while they at in groups at other times. When they give orders and those orders are carried out, they participate in groups.

    That states kill people legitimately is not arguable. But such doesn’t imply that states can also kill people illegitimately. Please remember that what is legal is not always what is moral. However, you are are wrong about individuals. If one individual kills another in self-defense having no other recourse, that is legitimate. But again, the existence of legitimate killing doesn’t rule out the existence of illegitimate killing. So what is your point?

    That individuals act in groups denies neither individual responsibility nor group action. In addition, if a kingdom acts without justice, it has become nothing more than a den of robbers.

    Like

  44. Paul,
    What is your point? If you are guilty of individual sin because you are in Adam, how does that prevent you from being guilty in corporate sin as well? Groups that kill and steal commit sins. When those groups consist of a nation, then that nation sins. Such doesn’t mean that everyone is guilty to the same degree of the same sin. Those who know or could know about state sin but are quiet, are in the same camp as those German civilians whom Eisenhower forced to tour the Nazi death camps. Their guilt is different from those who turned people over to the authorities or who aided the authorities or performed the killings or who ordered the killings. But a collection of sins doesn’t negate the fact that the end result was a group action that was a sin.

    BTW, I agree that DGH is good at history. But determining whether a nation can sin or not relies on facts and logic that is exclusive to the study of history. I’ve heard DGH on C-Span. He made some very good points. I know he has much to contribute in terms of history. But that does not make him more qualified than others to judge on whether nations can sin. If it does, what would you say to a historian who believes that nations can sin?

    Like

  45. D.G.,
    Want to correct a misstatement of mine. I meant to say that just because states can kill legitimately, that doesn’t imply that they can’t kill illegitimately. Sure wish you had an edit option on the comments here.

    Like

  46. Curt:

    The point is, you asked if the statement of confession is Biblical. The answer is no. That is the point.

    Regarding Dr. Darryl Hart and history, I said,

    >>>>Maybe when Paul was alive, the people who normally do bad things stopped doing those bad things? Surely Paul would have penned something akin to the weak, feckless and flaccid statement we have before us had there been sin in the Roman empire. I think I’ve read that Rome was full of racism, nativism, misogyny and economic disparity. Just probably not during the lifetime of Jesus or the Apostles, right?<<<<

    DGH probably knows whether or not Rome was guilty of the sins outlined by the pious evangelicals above. He also knows if Rome was in fact sinless from the time of Jesus' birth to the death of the apostles. That could explain the lack of national confession from Jesus or Paul. Had Jesus or Paul penned such a thing, I'm confident that Dr. Hart would agree that it is biblical.

    BTW, if I happen to be wrong about anything (or everything I've written) it is comforting to know that there are people out there who are repenting for me. If that doesn't work, well, I do own a coin that bears the Pope's likeness. I think I'll send that to DGH since he's accused of being wrong far more than me.

    Like

  47. Paul,
    Am confused by your last note. There are individual sins and there are group sins. It isn’t where there are only individual sins or there are only group sins. The problem with D.G.’s approach in trying to deny corporate sin is that he believes that if nations can’t rid themselves of sins like individuals can, then what they do is not sinful. But some of what they do is to kill and steal.

    Then D.G. says that the difference between the individual and the nation is that the state has the right to kill and the individual does not. But that statement is false on both accounts since it is only under certain conditions that either can kill. States are allowed to carry out executions for capital offense or when defending the nation from attack. But should the state be allowed to kill when it invades another nation in order to conquer and/or to obtain resources? Is the state allowed to kill by neglecting the consequences of its actions that make death inevitable? Can the state put its own citizens to death for non capital offenses? And when it kills people for unjust reasons, is it morally wrong? And if it is morally wrong , has it sinned? In addition, an individual can kill if it is in self-defense and there is no other recourse to avoid being killed by someone threatening their lives. So what all that says is that just because there are some circumstances under which either the state or individuals can kill, it doesn’t mean that there are no circumstances under which either are prohibited to kill.

    As for D.G.’s knowledge of history, what does that have to do with our discussion. Corporate was not dealt with in the epistles, but it was dealt with in the OT. D.G. concludes from that corporate sin only applies when the Old Testament covenants are in effect. But there are two problems with that reasoning. The OT prophets cited non covenantal nations with corporate sin. Also, some of the corporate sins carried out then are carried out today. Were those sins only counted as sins because corporate sins were done away with like the ceremonial law was? What we see today are somewhat different circumstances than what the Church in the times of the Apostles saw. We have democracies rather than dictatorships. And the Gospel has been spread throughout the world. So one question is this: Does it honor the Gospel when the Church is silent about corporate actions that cause theft and unjust death and destruction? The Apostles were very sensitive about what honors the Gospel and what doesn’t. We see that in some f the commands that the Apostles give us such as the one that tells us to strive to live quiet lives.

    Finally, D.G. has a a lot to teach and it is good to benefit from that. But it seems from your comments that you could add to what you learn from him a certain level of independence in thinking as you read and meditate on the Scriptures.

    Like

  48. Is the state allowed to kill by neglecting the consequences of its actions that make death inevitable? Can the state put its own citizens to death for non capital offense?

    Is blasphemy a capital offense? The old covenant that you use as a guide for how states should act certainly allowed executions for among other things, blasphemy, talking back to parents, and sodomy.

    But should the state be allowed to kill when it invades another nation in order to conquer and/or to obtain resources?

    Did the nation of Israel sin when they killed every man, woman, child, and animal occupying the territory they were invading? Again, under the old covenant that was presumably acceptable. Of course under the new covenant the church has not been given the authority to execute God’s judgment in that way.

    Perhaps a NT question would be better – Romans executed people for non-capital offenses, invaded countries to extract resources, and enslaved conquered people (among others). Paul was a Roman citizen and we have no record of him every criticizing Rome in any of his existing letters. Did the apostle Paul share in the guilt for Rome’s actions?

    And when it kills people for unjust reasons, is it morally wrong? And if it is morally wrong , has it sinned?

    If the state has sinned, has God provided a means of propitiation for the state’s sin? Can the righteousness of Christ be imputed to a state? If not, what hope does the state have?

    Like

  50. Curt:

    What then must an American Christian do to atone for the sins of racism, misogyny, nativism and economic disparity?

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.