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 
Curt, so was Germany a nation under Hitler?
How’s them apples?
LikeLike
>>>>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.<<<<
I think there is much to learn from Dr. Hart that goes unsaid on this blog. Not only is he a snappy dresser, knowing when and when not to wear a bowtie, he also appears to be a very fit man. We all would do well to follow his example.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Is that first question a rhetorical question?
LikeLike
E. Burns
No one is talking about salvation under collectivism. We are talking about how Christians should share society with others.
LikeLike
Paul,
Why would you ask that question?
LikeLike
Curt,
If I share my lawnmower that’s not the same as giving it away via a mandated government requirement or government rule and regulation that makes me give it away. You have a poor definition of sharing. In fact as is the case with so many socialist thinkers you speak in studied ambiguity and euphemisms. It’s not “sharing” that your worldview/system is driving at, it is confiscation, control and redistribution. Because your socialism drives your exegesis, you actually believe that system is more fruit of the spirit like, more Christian.
LikeLike
“No one is talking about salvation under collectivism. We are talking about how Christians should share society with others.”
Then why do you insist on invoking sin? Instead of moralizing the behavior of states, why not invoke concepts like prudence and wisdom.
LikeLike
Curt, no.
LikeLike
Paul wrote: >>>>What then must an American Christian do to atone for the sins of racism, misogyny, nativism and economic disparity?<<<>>>Why would you ask that question?<<<<
Seriously, what do you or what do you suppose the authors of the "evangelical statement on national sins" expect Christians to do in response to the "confession of national sin?" I certainly hope there is more to it than giving them my amen along with a tax deductible contribution.
LikeLike
Paul,
Maybe it is because we tend to be a rigid people but why would our acknowledging national sins make us think that national sins are identical in every way to personal sins. Both sets of actions can be sins because they fall short of the mark. But one set of sins, in especially in NT times, are sins committed by groups consisting of Christians and unbelievers while our personal sins are committed by ourselves.
This insistence that national sins must be atoned for because they are sins is due more to rigidity in thought than to our evangelicalism. For look at why some are disqualifying national sins as being sins? It not because the actions in question fall short of the definition of sin or heinousness of some the acts, it whether nations can atone for their sins. Such thinking minimizes injustices nations visit on other nations as well as their own people.
Only Christ can atone for sins. And Christ’s atonement applies to our participation in corporate sins as well as our personal sins. But because Christ didn’t die to save whole nations doesn’t minimize how serious and horrible killing is when nation kill for unjust reasons.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Sure seems yours was a rhetorical question. After all, Hitler didn’t single handedly invade nations and executed the holocaust. Hitler as head of Germany directed his nation to perform such acts. And his nation complied when it didn’t have to. Germans didn’t have to participate in their nation’s sins, they could have resisted. And some did.
So why do you think these apples are poisonous to my point?
LikeLike
sdb,
See my note to Paul
LikeLike
E. Burns,
Why do you insist on insulting? In fact, what is my definition of sharing society with others in the first place?
LikeLike
Curt,
You also have weird definitions of “insult” I guess. No insulting going on, just debate. Lighten up Francis!
Besides you are one to talk, your compassion is ankle deep and so is your credibility in the area of condescension/ insults and moral superiority.
Curt states: “”Do you even know what Socialism is in order to oppose it? “”
Please! Everyone here clearly does, they just disagree with you.
I’m suddenly reminded of what George Will said……”In Jesse Jackson’s world what is the definition of a racist …..anyone beating him in a debate of ideas.”
Do you or do you not believe a socialist system is more fruit of the spirit like, more Christian? Because my impression from reading you here for a long time as well as reading your blog is that indeed you do.
LikeLike
Curt,
Sin is any want of conformity to or transgression of God’s law. When one sins, one is made an enemy of God, and the only way to get out from under the curse and wrath of God is for propitiation to be made. Christ made propitiation for the sins of the elect. He didn’t make propitiation for the nations.
In the OT, when a nation was cursed – everyone, every man, woman, child, and animal faced his wrath. When the Israelites took the promised land – they didn’t let the infants live. When God poured out his wrath on Sodom, the children weren’t spared. But that was under the old covenant.
Under the new covenant, things are different. And this is the crux of my question for you (it isn’t rhetorical or an attempt to trap you – I am honestly interested in how you sort this out). Your appeal to national sins relies on appropriation of the OT (and the minor prophets in particular). In what way is the child born in 1930’s Germany guilty of the sins committed by the Nazi regime. I get how a child born among the Canaanites would be. But on this side of the cross, it isn’t Israel among the nations, it is the church among the world.
Looking at the NT (and thereby setting aside thorny questions about how to apply the OT), we have the example of Paul. To what extent is complicit in the evil of slavery based on what he wrote (and didn’t write) in Philemon? “Rome” committed all kinds of atrocities and was clearly an unjust society, yet we have no record of Paul ever speaking out against any of these. What does it mean to say that as a Roman citizen (a status he took advantage of even while he did not use his platform to speak out on the social evils of his nation) to say that he was complicit in Rome’s sins? Was his blindness to this sin a sign that he was not truly regenerate? Presumably not. Does the NT anywhere teach that they should repent of the sins they share in as citizens of Rome? I can’t think of any offhand. All the sins I can think of (including James’s scolding of the rich) are focused on the behavior of individuals.
Now setting aside the question of sin, there are other categories available to us to address problems in society. I suspect that by taking out the moral language, the call to action will sound much less like hectoring and be more likely to advance prudent courses of action that improve the lives of others.
LikeLike
Curt, if Germany was a legitimate government, resisting or overthowing it was a problem. A long history of resistance theory in the West that your ad hitleriums don’t acknowledge.
LikeLike
D.G.,
When did Nazi Germany’s government become illegitimate? And if it was always legitimate, why would overthrowing it be a problem? And why would refusing to obey laws that allowed for the unjust imprisonment and killing of people pose problems?
For how long will you attempt to use deduction to try to deny that Nazi Germany acted immorally and sinned when it invaded its neighbors and persecuted the Jews? Regardless of the legitimacy of the Nazi regime, the nation of Germany did those things when ruled by the Nazis. And yet, you are going to insist that Nazi Germany’s actions were not immoral and thus their actions were not sinful when they consisted of invading Germany’s neighbors and persecuting the Jews?
LikeLike
sdb,
So every nation that was punished by God saw everyone in that nation receiving plagues or being killed? Certainly when Israel was taking the Promised Land, the injunction that everyone be killed was employed. But was such an exception or the rule? And why put in the line about the minor prophets. Was what the minor prophets wrote less of God’s Word than what the major prophets wrote?
Yes, there is were changes that took place once the NT replaced the OT. But do those changes mean that nations can destroy and pillage other nations with impunity? Look at the nature of the actions. Destroying property, killing people, and taking their resources and treasuries our of greed and/or ambition are not immoral, are not sinful?
You are simply trying to use deduction here where the Scriptures do not encourage us to use it. And your use of deduction says that one nation can treat another nation in any way it can and it cannot never be immoral or sinful. So Nazi Germany was not immoral or sinful when it invaded its neighbors and persecuted the Jews. The US was not immoral when it allowed for slavery and then when it allowed for Jim Crow to follow.
You are deducing away sin by using examples from an exceptional situation to establish a rule. And you do so because you live in a privileged position where there is no perceived immediate threat to you posed by another nation. And maybe that is why you reference Paul the way you do as well. You don’t mention the historical differences that exist between his time and now. Or maybe you forgot to read Augustine when he talks about what a Kingdom without justice is like. Finally, just maybe if your home was destroyed and/or you saw death all around you from war you would see things more clearly.
LikeLike
E. Burns,
You wrote:
If I share my lawnmower that’s not the same as giving it away via a mandated government requirement or government rule and regulation that makes me give it away. You have a poor definition of sharing. In fact as is the case with so many socialist thinkers you speak in studied ambiguity and euphemisms.
I have a ‘poor definition of sharing’ is not an insult when your projection of what I believe Socialism is so inaccurate?
And since you insist that everyone here knows what socialism is, which socialists have you read so that you could know what socialism is? With your statement that everyone here knows what socialism is, you imply that socialism is a monolith.
Right now, you are not even showing a legitimate effort to discuss socialism with any kind seriousness. Rather, again, you rely on being insulting by saying that you know what socialism and I don’t. But, again, which socialists have you read?
LikeLike
Curt,
No where did Dr. Hart or anyone else here defend the Nazi’s awful sins! It is actually you who are using tactics of illogical deductions.
Unlike government run schools which typically no longer at least teach free enterprise along side the the socialist big government claptrap which is now more strickly taught, I had a broader education, where we did indeed study all the major thinkers behind socialism and collectivism. But clearly I am falling short to your standards. I will get right to work on reading your blog more and your recommended book list so that I can better understand your socialism ideal and the social justice/ activism gospel.
Based on the core belief system clearly represented at your blog, yes I think you have a misguided idea of “sharing” among other things. Again, I will stand by my assessment of your social justice worldview as well as your view of what the gospel is. Your own blog as well as all you coninue to state here make it very evident.
I in no way am personally insulting you.
“In today’s therapeutic culture, which seems designed to validate every opinion and feeling, there will rarely be disagreement without anger between thin-skinned people who cannot distinguish the phrase ‘you’re wrong’ from ‘you’re stupid.'” -George Will
Do you or do you not believe a socialist system is more fruit of the spirit like, more Christian? (At least your special secret sauce recipe of socialism?) Your blog would indicate that you believe that answer is yes indeed socialism is more in keeping with your version of the gospel and the Christian Faith. We have already established (because I made it clear in my first post on this thread) that I do not believe free enterprise or capitalism is somehow more Christian (I just think it works a bit better for the most people), but you refuse to answer this question here.
If you could write an essay of the essense of who Jesus is, what would that look like? I would bet you have already done that, can you provide it here? Again we already have your blog, but just curious if you would answer directly here?
LikeLike
Are there counter examples?
Sodom and later Nineveh were not part of the conquest.
Because you have appealed to them in these threads to justify your theological support for the notion of national sins. I’m trying to understand your exegetical approach. I’m as skeptical of various strains of left leaning political Christianity (e.g., Sider, Wallis, and the folks who find the editorial stance of Sojourners appealing) as I am of the way right leaning political Christians use 2Chronicles (for example).
It is all the word of God, but the exegesis in both instances is dubious.
The question is who bears the guilt. Not whether the actions of the Roman army were acceptable.
Yep. But was Rome guilty or the politicians and soldiers? The minor prophets to whom you have appealed were calling down curses on entire nations. So my question of Paul’s guilt stands.
No. I’m saying that the guilt is not corporate. Adam was my representative. He failed. Now it is Christ. I do nor bear the guilt of bad things our president commands or our soldierscarry out. That doesn’t mean they cannot sin or that I cannot sin.
No. Germany and the US did not sin. Hitler and Tillman did. I bear the guilt of neither.
You respond negatively when others here assume your position and motivations. I understand that irritation. I don’t understand why you feel at liberty to make any assumptions about me.
I brought up Paul as a cleaner NT example.
That is very condescending. You know nothing about me, my past, or my present status. Nor will you. The question I asked is how it is you choose to appropriate various parts of the OT. You have previously asserted that homophobia is problematic, so presumably you do not think the state is justified in executing gays. But you have also appealed to the minor prophets to justify your theological belief that nations can collectively sin. I’m curious how you arrive at this.
The fact that I do not believe that God any longer pours out his wrath on nations or that we bear sin by virtue of belonging to a group that did bad things does not entail that I don’t think people can sin. I do think that invoking the language of sin and redemption should be reserved for the gospel. Talk of war and international relations (along with other political matters outside the church) should be restricted to public reason for the reasons given by Rawls.
LikeLike
——-“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.””——
He is correct, this movement and others like it are one sided.
—-“The left learned lessons from the 1960’s never telegraph your ultimate intentions.” —-
Occupy Unmasked is a documentary worthy of viewing. 99% of these folks like to party/ get their Woodstock on, 1% are true believers. Activism and protest, that is what lefties do for fun. 99% of the rest of us go to ball games and the like for fun.
I think Curt is the real deal, legit, the 1%. He is not an acticist just to party or get his Woodstock on. But he is still wrong.
https://ladyliberty1885.com/2012/09/30/review-occupy-unmasked/
LikeLike
What lefties and social gospel folks don’t seem to understand about so called “economic disparity” is the upside.
LikeLike
cid:86A4CBBB-93A6-4199-AEDC-4D4F0DC26518
Of course the right wing “Jesus is a Republcan” camp is no good alternative either.
Which is why the Jesus of scripture and His gospel is so refresher when heard in all its glory.
LikeLike
image1.jpeg
LikeLike
E. Burns,
First, you seem not to have been around much. The question about the Nazis goes to the question about corporate sins. If there are no corporate sins, as D.G. and others have insisted, then what do we say about the Nazis? Was the Nazis’ invasion of their neighbors and persecution of the Jews immoral and sinful? No one asked D.G. and others to defend what the Nazis did. What was asked is if there are no corporate sins, what do we say about what the Nazis did? So you don’t need to attack a straw man there.
And so far, the standard you have fallen short of is to answer a simple question: What Socialists have you read? After all, you are the one insisting that your definition of socialism and what I advocate is correct despite the fact that I disagree with what you are saying. Thus, you should have some knowledge of socialism from those who advocated it rather than from its antagonists. So what Socialists have you read?
And if you haven’t read any, then isn’t your knowledge of socialism about the same as Bill Maher’s knowledge of Christianity?
And if you know so well what socialists like me believe, why the heck are you asking me any questions? And why should I answer because you are only contradict what I say if it doesn’t fit your view of socialism. And yes, you have been insulting. And quoting Will does what? Does it presuppose that he was right?
So, you have two tasks: 1) answer the question I have been asking you; and 2) answer the question about socialist system bearing more fruit of the spirit for me. Then I will be glad to let you know what I think.
About your upside of economic disparity. If any economic system has an upside, is it justified? So if economic disparity has an upside, is it justified? Or are these the questions we should be asking?
LikeLike
sdb,
Amos lists a number of nations that were about to be punished by God, was everyone killed in those judgements? Or when the nations that were used to judge Israel were judged, was everyone killed? Are you really trying to understand when you pose a model of thought that was not supported by the Scriptures in the first place and then try to prove that model by providing an inadequate number of examples?
You are simply trying to use deduction to claim that there are no national sins in today’s world despite the fact that murder and theft are declared to be sins and that nations, via their foreign policies commit murder theft. And not only that, some nations in their domestic policies also commit murder and theft.
And perhaps the reason why some want to deny the concept of corporate sins as practiced by nations is that such would require citizen accountability and response to those sins that would put them at odds with what they want from society. After all, Hitler didn’t invade his neighbors, the armies he commanded did. And Hitler didn’t kill any Jews, but those who carried out his orders did. Are you saying that when given orders like Hitler did, that the citizens of Germany did not sin by carrying them out? Or is the only obedience to the orders of a governmental authority that is considered to be sinful are those that violate the first table of the law?
BTW, are you familiar with the Nuremberg Principles?
LikeLike
I mentioned many I have read in previous threads, Rosa, Marx, Lenin and Howard Zinn to name a few. But again my stellar socialist credentials are not the issue here nor is it a requirement in understanding that capitalism is far better that any variety of socialism. (Even you special secret sauce variety, you know the one that if only we tried this one it would work) For you to make it such is regress and false delemma on your part. Your blog reveals clearly, but questions ( which you don’t give straight anaswers too) give you a chance to clarify.
Tasks? You must have me confused with some who works for you at the commune. That’s insulting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Curt
I don’t understand your claim that deduction is not a valid exegetical approach. First, I’m not entirely sure what you mean by deduction – do you have in mind formal logic ( deduction as opposed to abductive and inductive reasoning)? Or do you mean something more general? The WCF talks about “necessary consequence” – do you think the reformers were mistaken on this front?
In regards Amos and other OT records of curses called out on Israel’s enemies – I’m still not clear on your exegetical approach. In what sense were the people of those nations collectively guilty if they weren’t collectively punished? Of course, we speak colloquially about groups via a representative when we say, “Americans invaded Normandy on D-Day”. But of course, what we really mean is soldiers from America invaded Normandy. However, when we say that the human race is collectively guilty of Adam’s sin since he was our representative, we don’t mean that some subset of humans are guilty, but rather that we all are deserving of God’s wrath and born dead in our sins. This is collective guilt and we see other examples of this in the OT as well. Is this what you have in mind?
When I say that there are no national sins, what I mean is simply that I don’t bear the sin of the choices of other people. In the case of Germany under Hitler, those who ordered sinful behavior and those who engaged in sinful behavior are guilty. Those who did not engage are nor guilty. Germany contained a mix of people – some who were guilty and some who weren’t. One was not guilty by virtue of being a German. In the case of Sodom, one was guilty by virtue of living in that city – everyone, every man, woman, and child was guilty. This isn’t the case of Germany.
“And perhaps the reason why some want to deny the concept of corporate sins as practiced by nations is that such would require citizen accountability and response to those sins that would put them at odds with what they want from society. ”
Could be, but it would be uncharitable to assume bad motives about other people. A more charitable reason might be that some deny the concept of national sins is that the category does not make sense with what God has revealed in his Word – particularly the NT. If the problem is exegesis, clarifying how using deduction is illegitimate would be helpful.
“After all, Hitler didn’t invade his neighbors, the armies he commanded did. And Hitler didn’t kill any Jews, but those who carried out his orders did. Are you saying that when given orders like Hitler did, that the citizens of Germany did not sin by carrying them out?”
No. I’m saying that citizens who did not carry them out were not guilty. Those who did are. One is not guilty because one’s countrymen do bad things.
“Or is the only obedience to the orders of a governmental authority that is considered to be sinful are those that violate the first table of the law?”
I don’t follow here. Adultery is always wrong. It is wrong when done with the authority of the state. It is wrong to order it, it is wrong to engage in it when so ordered. The fact that a nation uses rape as a weapon of war (a sin for those who decide to do so and for those who carry it out) does not implicate everyone in a nation. I think the sticky situation is what happens when one benefits from someone else’s sin. If an army defeats one’s enemies by using rape as a weapon of terror and down the road you, who thinks what that army did was awful and never would have done such a thing yourself, nevertheless benefit from those victories, do you share in the guilt. I say no. I gather that you think the answer is yes. Is that correct?
LikeLike
“BTW, are you familiar with the Nuremberg Principles?”
Yes, but I don’t see how these bear on the question of collective guilt.
LikeLike
“What was asked is if there are no corporate sins, what do we say about what the Nazis did?”
What each sinful thing each Nazi “did” was sinful. One doesn’t need corporate sin to recognize that. Perhaps a more subtle issue comes about when “good people” with “good intentions” intending to do “good things” create disastrous consequences. For example, Denmark evidently implemented very generous maternal leave policies, and as one would expect – many women took advantage of these generous leave policies. However, this policy killed a lot of people. Oops! OK, so while well intended, this was a bad policy. Who’s guilty? The legislators who meant well? The citizens who pushed for the policy? The new moms who took advantage of it? The patriarchy for making nursing a gendered profession?
It seems to me that guilt is the wrong concept to apply here. Obviously the bad side effects of the policy need to be dealt with, but I don’t think the language of sin, guilty, and redemption applies. That doesn’t make the deaths that resulted less tragic or the need to reform the system in some way less urgent. But it does lower the temperature of the conversation about what to do by setting aside questions of guilt. One might say the same of other policies like the war on drugs, terror, etc…
LikeLike
Curt, “If there are no corporate sins, as D.G. and others have insisted, then what do we say about the Nazis?”
This is hard? What did Americans say about Parliament in the 1770s? Nazis didn’t invent tyranny.
LikeLike
D.G.,,
We are talking about corporate sin. And if corporate sin does not exist, are you saying that the Nazis were like the 1770s Parliament where they were only tyrannical? Or were the Nazis immoral too?
LikeLike
sdb,
Yes, each sinful thing the Nazis did was sin– which si just redundant. But remember, the Nazis acted as a group. So their example proves that corporate sin exists.
As for the rest of your note, please use events or policies that are comparable. While the deaths that resulted from a shortage of nurses could have easily been prevented not by refusing to implement the policy in question, but by preparing for the effects it would have; how does that apply to the Nazis? Was the policy in question well-intentioned only to see it produce unforeseen, and thus accidental deaths? Were the Nazi policies well-intentioned only to accidentally produce bad side-effects?
LikeLike
sdb,
My claim isn’t that deduction can’t be a valid exegetical approach. My claim is that your particular example has no biblical support. All you are pointing to is a correlation that you can’t prove exists in the first place. Plus, sin isn’t defined by how God punishes it. Sin is defined by the fact that a particular act or thought violates one or more of God’s commands. And there are no grounds for using punishments to define sins. Plus, you can’t prove your point unless you go through Scriptures and show how when each nation sinned, the results you specified occurred. And you didn’t do that. You simply have no scriptural grounds.
In addition, do we see God immediately punish every sin whether it is collective or not. Or does God overlook sins for a while. Think about Nineveh. Didn’t the people there sin and yet they were not punished?
Or when God does collectively punish sin, is the collective punishment always the same? After all, isn’t that your claim? That when nations in the OT sinned, they were always punished the same way.
You’re not taking careful approach to exegesis.
LikeLike
E Burns,
What did Rosa Luxemburg say about Lenin? After all, you have made the credibility of your knowledge of socialism the issue by your claim that everyone here knows what socialism is but the problem is that I disagree with their definition.
So again, what did Rosa Luxemburg say about Lenin?
LikeLike
Curt, you and I are immoral. What’s the point? Nazi Germany was immoral but the U.S. isn’t? Or is the U.S. also immoral like Nazi Germany? And if the U.S. is like the Nazi’s, you’re silly.
LikeLike
Curt,
You need to pay attention to posts in the convo. I already addressed Rosa vs. Lenin many posts ago. It’s a Non-issue because the bigger reality is what they had in common. For you to harp on me or anyone else’s detailed understanding of socialism or your isolated definition of socialism is outlandish infinite regress on your part. Understanding your isolated definition of socialism is not the litmus test for conversation or conclusions about social gospel movements. I guess when one sees themselves as “The Party leader” of the universe they think they can dole out tasks though.
The issue of this entire post from the beginning was a signed document by a group of academics, who by signing the document are acquiescing at best or flat out agreeing with a kind of social gospel/ liberation theology perspective. It was you who went down that road of insisting on your “perfect” understanding of socialism , not me. I reject that premise. Besides the lame moral superiority/ condescending comment, “Do you even know what socialism is?” …… You also clearly implied something by your use of the term Pharisee. The treasure chest of moral outrage you social gospel types have is amazing.
Now, Curt, (Party Leader) your task should you choose to accept (note how in my system you have a choice) is to answer these questions you have continued to avoid.
Do you or do you not believe a socialist system is more fruit of the spirit like, more Christian? (At least your special secret sauce recipe of socialism?) Your blog reveals answer as a clear yes, but you can expand on the secret sauce here, do enlighten us. Why do you prefer that system to overthrow capitalism worldwide? (Overthrow of capitalism, which both sister Rosa and Lenin favored) As opposed to other inferior socialism systems? Will that system better bring people into the Kingdom? Is this what Jesus is all about? Liberation and social justice theology? Is it the essence of the gospel? What was Machen’s birthday? How many times per week did Lenin trim his sole patch? If you can’t answer can’t answer this last one you have no cred as a socialist.
One last thing, when you get back to commune later today after handing out those pamphlets, remember that Vladimir and Ivan are human beings too and when you bark orders at them about “tasks” it may be seen as a micro aggression against their humanity or abuse of Party leader privileged status. Try instead to include them in the community hobby activitiy of protest marching as an ice breaker. Remember the workers need fun and down time too.
LikeLike
@Curt
I’m afraid I don’t follow your proof. The fact that three guys can work together to rob a bank and that all three who participated in the robbery (the guy who planned it, the guy who held up the teller, and the guy who drove the get away car) acted as a group and all are guilty of robbery does not entail that corporate sins exist – guilt by virtue of being represented by another. What am I missing here?
No. I guess the point is that when bad things happen, whether they are intentional or unintentional – the harmed are still harmed. Culpability is besides the point in my mind – the important thing is that we do what we can to rectify the problem and not repeat it. The language of sin and guilt brings heat, anger and defensiveness and, without a means of atonement, no possibility of resolution.
I’m afraid you’ve lost me here. I’d like to understand where you are coming from, but I don’t follow you. So we see examples of collective guilt in the OT: man’s collective guilt under Adam, Sodom, Korah, the Canaanites, and so forth. Here a group was held guilty because their representative was guilty. On this side of the cross, a group is declared righteous because their representative was righteous on their behalf. What I don’t find in scripture is any example in the NT of collective guilt outside of Adam. Rome was not “judged”. It seems to me that Paul, as a Roman citizen, did not share in the sins of Rome. Do you disagree?
The correlation that I thought I was pointing to is that there are examples of corporate sins in the OT and not in the NT. The context in the OT is mostly (entirely?) based on the relationship of the nations to Israel. Now, the relationship is between the church and world (which is guilty based on Adam).
Yes and no. God is just and will by no means let the guilty go unpunished. Right? The scope of God’s punishment determines the scope of guilt. When Korah was punished, it was not just Korah, but all of his household. Every man, woman, child and animal was collectively guilty on the basis of the behavior of their representative. This is different from saying using the name of a nation as shorthand for those who came from that nation. Saying the US invaded Normandy is not to say that the US collectively invaded Normandy. Rather it is shorthand for troops from the US invaded Normandy.
I don’t follow. My point is that I don’t understand how you arrive at your position. I see collective guilt in the OT based on who their representatives were. I don’t see warrant for that in the NT. I don’t see why the fact that a nation was not judged collectively at some point in the OT is relevant to my question of how to appropriate curses called down on nations in the OT apply to modern nation states.
God is merciful and stays his hand for a while, but that patience is not unlimited. But of course, all sin is punished. Every single one. Either the sinner pays for eternity or Christ pays on the sinner’s behalf. I don’t think we disagree here. The question is how that applies to the modern nation state and the Christian within that state.
My claim is that there are examples of collective guilt in the OT and some of those examples apply to nation states (e.g., Sodom). We see that the nation is collectively guilty based on the scope of the punishment (the reason that it was just to slaughter the infants is because they were guilty on the basis of the actions of their representative). It is also possible that a lot of people in a country do something bad, and those people in the country are condemned for their behavior. This isn’t collective guilt.
Fast-forwarding to the 20th Century – Germany doesn’t bear the guilt of the holocaust. The perpetrators (those who orchestrated, ordered, and executed) are guilty. The child born in 1943 is not guilty of the horrors of the Third Reich. The child born in Sodom two days before it was destroyed was. These are very different. Moving into more familiar territory, who bears the guilt of the atrocities committed under Jim Crow? Not America. The people who engaged in those sinful actions. Telling people today who were not even alive prior to when Jim Crow was dismantled that they share in the guilt because they have the same skin color or ancestors of the perpetrators of Jim Crow is firstly incorrect and secondly counter productive. One needn’t assume some collective guilt to recognize prudent policies that may ameliorate the effects from that age that continue to linger.
But perhaps I’m missing something, and I would be happy for you to show me what it is that I’ve missed. I’m genuinely interested in how you handle the OT. I’m no biblical scholar to be sure, so I have no doubt that I have plenty of things to correct in my own understanding of how the OT relates to the NT. But I have to confess that I don’t follow your exegetical approach at all.
LikeLike
sdb,
Yes, when three guys work together sin, their group sinned. That doesn’t individual sin, still the group sinned. But three guys acting as a group is not comparable to when a nation sins. Why? First, it wasn’t just Hitler who invaded Germany’s neighbors and persecuted the Jews. German institutions, like the military for invasions and the legal system, participated in the invasions and/or the persecution of the Jews. German citizens also participated in both through taxes and helping the German government track down the Jews. In fact, silence in the face of such by most of the German population showed support for the actions of the state. Are you going to now say that the actions of a group of 3 guys is comparable to when all the mechanisms of the state are used to murder and steal?
And yet, Germans had choices despite the totalitarian regime if the Nazis. Some hid Jews or helped them escape from Germany. Others tried to inform Germans about what was happening. For example, the White Rose, which consisted mostly of students from the University of Munich, ran an underground newsletter informing its readers of the truths about what their government was doing.
And as for the problem with the nurses, what is being compared to? Is it being compared with actions by the state that murder and steal? Of course one fixes the problem, but not all problems immediately involve moral issues. Are you going to compare giving family leave to nurses with what the Nazis did?
And as for you being lost by what I was saying, it is quite simple. There is no biblical precedent for using the abbreviated list of National sins being identified by the specific punishment that everyone in the nation was killed. There is no explicit statement from the Scriptures that make that point. There are examples in the scriptures where the results of sins are different. Compare Achan and David for example. Achan was punished by having him and his family killed. David was guilty of both adultery and murder and yet he remained on the throne despite his punishment. Plus, you have failed to address those nations that committed national sins but were not punished by having everyone killed.
You acknowledge collective guilt. I do to. But it seems here that our disagreement comes in how to recognize when that collective guilt occurs. My point from the beginning is that it is recognized by comparing the actions of the group whether they consist of 3 guys or a nation, you contend that we examine the punishments incurred by the nations as described in the OT. At the same time, you write above that God is merciful but that his patience doesn’t last forever. The statement about God being merciful contradicts your contention.
LikeLike
E. Burns,
But you still have missed the point on Rosa vs Lenin. You wrote the following and while you read it, remember that you deny being insulting:
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?
You missed much of Luxemburg’s criticizms. For in her criticisms, she does not criticize Lenin for bigotry or being sectarian. And in her criticisms, there is no mention of the redistribution of wealth because that wasn’t her issue. And one of my points is that while you claim to have the necessary knowledge about socialism, you haven’t read any socialists with the possible exception of my blog. To show this, in the same article where Luxemburg criticizes Lenin, she also parallel criticism of Kautsky. What was that criticsim? How does it parallel her criticism of Lenin.
Frankly, you could not tell the difference between Stalinism and libertarian Socialism without looking them up. You don’t know that redistribution of wealth is not the center of socialism. But as for redistribution of wealth, you should note that its relationship is to the original distribution of wealth what the relationship history revisionism has to history. Do you know what that is?
Why don’t you read actual articles from the marxist dot org website and then come back to discuss. But before you do that, distinguish the form of Marxism generally presented there from what Stalinists say. Read Gorbacbev’s criticisms of Stalin and then reconcile that with his affinity to Lenin. Watch the youtube video of Chomsky criticizing Lenin. Then you will be able to write from an informed viewpoint about socialism whether you are in favor of it or not.
And, btw, yours I quoted above are very insulting. You seem comfortable with looking down on some with whom you disagree. If you want to continue to discuss socialism with me, then eliminate the insults and the condescending attitudes.
LikeLike
Curt,
Your still not answering and you won’t outline the secret sauce openly here. So often it is hard to tell the activists/ advocates from the victims. Being a victim is the Zeitgeist of our times, being a victim is a growth industry in America. A very Big Business as a matter of fact. Just like the health wealth gospel was in the 1980s, so too in the times that we live in now a kind of Howard Zinn / Pope Francis liberation theology is indeed very vogue. Christian ministry is not immune. 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. This is where you go wrong. And again what this post was all about, was a signing of a social gospel/ liberation theology. The Gospel’s focus, core and center is not social justice activism. Jesus was not the great community organizer/activist. You and others who lean in the social gospel direction let your activism drive your view of the gospel and scripture. But unlike 20-30 years ago you are living on more fertile ground for it to get traction. Health wealth TV evangelists are out, social gospel/Pope Francis is in. Both are wrong.
As pointed out, Outrage is easy. So is moral posturing. You do an awful lot of that Curt.
Paul no where is found doing the kind of social activism that you endorse and tether so tightly to the gospel and Christianity. What did Paul get most outraged about? He was most outraged when people got the gospel wrong.
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-not that there is another one, but there are some trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you gospel contrary to the one we preach to you let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: if anyone is preaching to you a gospel country to the one you received, let him be accursed.
For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I was still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.” Galatians 1:1-10
I am not at all saying the gospel does not have implications to living or that it won’t be fruit producing. I even agree with some of your thrust of being weary of authoritarianism. I can even see it going astray in Reformed churches.
I am on record of being pretty critical of folks like that.
https://oldlife.org/2016/01/kevin-swanson-is-not-tim-keller/
But your conclusions on so many issues don’t seem grounded in exegesis, more grounded in a hyper activism- victim- outrage worldview. Some of those things may be legit, be you greatly have the cart before the horse. You put the spotlight on the outrage, activism and social justice. Scripture is clear that spotlight should be on Christ.
What is the gospel?
http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/what-is-the-gospel1
One reason many get concerned over academics signing a movement like (again let’s go back to Dr. Hart’s original post) this is that it has implications about the heart of the gospel. That I believe is the core disagreement here. Not ultimately what you or think about socialism. But you are wrong about that as well. ;-). That said, I in no way believe capitalism is more intrinsically Christian. I have been clear on that. However it does seem clear that you think socialism is more Christian.
The vigorous and fun spirited sparring that goes on at old life is not insults, but again you are one to talk. Comes down to this….I believe the signed document referenced and linked in the original post is representative of a “different gospel.” You do not think that, you believe it is good stuff. As representative in your consistent and ongoing defense of movements like this. We disagree. Peace be with you.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Why is it silly to say that Nazi Germany was immoral and committed corporate sins when it invaded its neighbors and persecuted the Jews? Yes, you and I are immoral and sinful. But your tent of immorality is pretty big and obscures the degree of immorality involved in waging wars of aggression and trying to exterminate a race of people.
LikeLike
E. Burns,
First, you’ve made two false assumptions about what I believe. The first one has to do with believing that Socialism revolves around the redistribution of wealth. The second one is that I believe I have found the “secret sauce” for utopian or biblical form of socialism. Both assumptions are false.
Second, you’ve made these assumptions because you presumed that you know what socialism is. And you refuse to show your expertise. I’ve read much more on socialism than you have and I wouldn’t claim to be an expert. But I do know enough to identify those who aren’t even knowledgeable on the subject. And while you write as if you are knowledgeable, you aren’t. You more less rely on old pejorative stereotypes which is why your two assumptions mentioned above are false.
I have said a number of times that socialism, at least from the Marxist tradition, does not revolve around the redistribution of wealth. But that redistribution is more than just a red flag to some, it is an act of war. Redistribution of wealth occurs in both Capitalists and Socialist nations. And just like history revisionism is to history, the redistribution of wealth, the validity of the redistribution of wealth is inversely related to the validity of the original distribution of wealth. That was my whole point in bringing up Madison. I didn’t do that to promote socialism. I simply did that because you are fixated on this redistribution of wealth even though it is not the hub of socialism from the Marxist tradition.
And as for your opposition to Christians being involved in activism, I favor it whether they are right-wing activists, liberal activists, or left-wing activists. Politics can be considered, from a biblical perspective, to be a field of Practical Theology. And what Christians must always ask themselves when deciding on whether they will become involved with politics or social causes is this question: How will we share society with others? Please note that those others are nonChristians. Perhaps, if we lived during the times of the Apostles, we would not have to worry about that question because other issues were more urgent. But such is not the case today and to be silent, in the name of Christ, on issues where gross immorality has become pervasive, is to associate complicity with the Gospel and thus dishonor the Gospel. This is especially true in a nation with a strong Christian presence.
The only thing I ask Christians involved with social causes and/or politics to do is to remember two parables: the parable of the two men praying and the parable of the 4 soils. Other than that, as long as each sector of society gains enough of a voice in decision making both at work and in the public sector, then I am agreeable with the situation. After all, Socialism is about increased worker power so that the bourgeoisie does not control life for everyone else. I disagree with Marx on the proletariat dictatorship because I believe that to bar either side from making decisions results, at best, in a partial democracy.
So before you go on about your list of faults about me, please check your faulty assumptions at the door. And you can drop your accusations that amount to nothing more than being distractions for those who read and sin for you–that is if you remember Matthew 5.
LikeLike
How will we share society with others, is not the essence of the gospel. But you think it is.
LikeLike
Curt:
I have not read a whole lot about socialism. Can you point to a nation today or society in the past that “did” socialism well?
LikeLike
Curt:
What was your response when you read about the professors confessing national sins? What are you now doing to address the issues cited and what do you plan to do in the future?
LikeLike
E. Burns,
How we share society with others is a reality in that we must deal with unless we live in monasteries. When D.G. criticizes Carter for his Gospel approach to reporting news, D.G.. reminds him that some jobs are about providence, not the Gospel.
LikeLike
Curt, because the person saying Germany was immoral is silly.
LikeLike
Paul,
I can point to those who began socialism well, like Iran before the Shah and Chile before Pinochet. But how they would turn out is anyone’s guess since the US sponsored coups and installed dictators. And depending on what you cal Socialism, some European nations have done well and so did the US after FDR. But all that depends on what you call socialism.
The general trend is this, nations that went in socialism through democratic processes were never given a chance because they tended to be in the West and the US overthrew their governments and installed dictators in most cases. Those that tried socialism after Revolutions tended to imitate the kind of tyranny that existed prior to the revolutions. There is one notable to example to that which was Nicaragua. Nicaragua overthrew and US supported dictator and became a democracy. But after years of US sponsored terrorism in which the World Court condemned the US for its actions, the people elected a non-scoalist government. However, the leader of that Sociallist government was elected back into office.
Of course a negative example of a democracy that yielded a socialist leader was Venezuela. However, the Left criticized Chavez for not being socialistic in giving workers the opportunity to enter decision making positions. That was because Chavez imitated Castro.
Thus, you see, there is no simple answer. However, there are pockets of socialism in the US. That is where workers own and democratically run the business. That is socialism in the private sector.
As for Capitalism, what we see in foreign side of today’s neoliberal capitalism is a lack of concern for the environment and workers as well as a favoring for foreign investors over the voice of the people. On the domestic side of neoliberal capitalism, we see the same disregard for the environment and workers. The US, for example has been reclassified from being a democracy to that of being an oligarchy. And what you see with Trump as he eliminates protection for women at the workplace for businesses doing work for the federal government and he attacks Obama’s protections for clean air and water.
So what seems like a simple question becomes complex for several reasons.
LikeLike