3.4 All our thinking and living is enculturated (part 4)

The philosophy journey continues...

1.1 Unexamined Assumptions
1.2 "Unitary" Thinking
2.1 Binary Thinking in Ethics
2.2 Contextualization in Missions
2.3 Beyond Relativism and Absolutes
3.1 Setting the Stage for Political Conversation
3.2 Binary Thinking in Political Thinking
3.3 Assumptions about Christ and Culture I
_____________________________

18. There are other options. As an Arminian, I believe that God -- in his sovereignty no less -- gives us the freedom to disobey him. Yes, there will be eternal consequences. But he has built choice into the way he runs the world. Therefore, both because of human fallenness and because God has created a world where we have to choose, I believe the Western model that separates government from religion is actually a fair mirror of the way God runs the world.

As I (and most) understand the U.S. Constitution, there is meant to be a clear separation between religion and the law. Congress should not pass laws that are based on specifically religious beliefs or practices. It should allow Muslims and Hindus the freedom to practice their own religions unhindered. This is the now long-standing interpretation of the Constitution, and it has the wisdom of history behind it. We will explore this boundary in more detail soon enough.

Arguably none of the freedoms in the Constitution are absolutes. There are exceptions. If someone's religion involved sacrificing random individuals off the street, it would contradict a more fundamental principle. I am getting ahead of myself into some of the content of chapter 9. What we as Christians might call a basic moral code is really the basic stipulations of a social contract we make with each other. I won't kill you if you won't kill me. More on that to come as well.

This set up creates a distinction between what I as a Christian believe is right and what laws we should have as a nation. The Constitution largely sets us up as a relativist nation with regard to religion in general. The government is supposed to be agnostic with regard to which religion is correct (or if any of them are). You could argue that -- to a large extent -- this is how God is running the world before his second coming, although occasionally he might step in to steer the course of nations.

One way or another, we can have a lively debate about what we think God's approach is. He let the Nazis wreak havoc on the world for over ten years -- not very long. He gave the Amorites about four hundred years before he destroyed them. Nineveh got a reprieve because of their repentance but were fried a couple hundred years later.

So here is a question. We do not believe in gay marriage or abortion in the first trimester. What should the government do? Can we make a non-religious case against them in the secular sphere?

Or should we try to change the US Constitution and make America a religious state? There are people who would like to do so. Some would say that the forces associated with Project 2025 have ultimate goals along these lines. Are they correct? Perhaps we'll see. 

The question for now is about our unexamined assumptions. There are so many questions and so many options. Have we considered the options in perspective or are we blindly following the impulses handed to us by our upbringings and Christian subcultures?

Like the "Christ against culture" option, I believe many American Christians simply assume that the "Christ above culture" option is what Christians do. It is an unexamined assumption. And of course, others have unexamined assumptions on the "separation of church and state" side as well. Get these two sets of unexamined assumptions together at a Thanksgiving dinner table and let the fun begin. 

Are there aspects to American law that we would call "moral"? Yes, but I would argue that they technically should result from our implicit social contract with each other. Is freedom of religion absolute? No. There are clear exceptions. When freedoms come into conflict, they have to be prioritized. America was arguably designed to give us maximal religious freedom as long as our freedoms don't overrun the freedoms of others.

19. Some do not know how to reconcile their faith and religious identity with their existence and life within a secular environment. Some have therefore opted for a Christ and culture in paradox option. This option basically follows Christian faith when it is in a Christian context. Then it lives a potentially contradictory life in the world.  

Think "Sunday Christian." Worship God on Sunday and live like the Devil the rest of the week. I think of the mafia and organized crime movies I have seen where a family can be very religious on one level but then murderous on another. Go to Catholic mass and then have somebody murdered during the week. The contradiction doen't have to be that sharp.

Few of us face such sharp pressures unless they are of our own making. It is an incoherent life. But no doubt most of us have inconsistencies in our faith and life. These may come from blind spots we have. We might claim strongly that we don't have any racist attitudes when they are obvious to others. 

In the 1920s, large portions of white Protestant churches in certain regions (especially the South and Midwest) were deeply intertwined with the Ku Klux Klan, and many members saw no contradiction between Klan membership and their Christian faith. Indeed, there's a story from 1899 where Christians went to church and then took trains out near Newnan, Georgia to watch the lynching of Sam Hose. These individuals saw no contradiction between their faith and what seem to many of us blatantly unChristian attitudes and behaviors.

While most of us would dismiss this sort of "two kingdoms in paradox" approach, we probably all live it out to some extent in our lives.

20. Niebuhr called another approach "Christ in culture." Although it is not exactly how Niebuhr meant it, it is popular to connect this approach to Christians who are perceived to be taking on worldly values. They are conforming to the world and letting the world influence their Christianity. They are being "syncretistic" -- inappropriately mixing their Christian faith with worldly values.

I have most heard Christians point the finger here at the acceptance of homosexuality by other Christians. Acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle by Christians is placed in the category of accommodating worldly perspectives. Support of women in ministry has also been included at times in this category as absorbing worldly feminism. Another possible example is Christian Smith's concept of "Moral Therapeutic Deism." By this term, he referred to a sense of some young people that God is distant and mostly interested in whether you are a good person. The goal of life is to be happy.

In each case, the concept is that the Christian has absorbed foreign elements into their faith from the surrounding culture. In other words, your faith has been compromised without you realizing it. You have unexamined assumptions about what Christian faith actually is.

That leads to an important question. What is the difference between contextualization and syncretism? When are you simply giving your faith a different form and when are you actually altering the substance of your faith? Our faith is always incarnated. It can never be "de-formed" into some pure substance. So how can we tell when we are mixing our faith with hostile elements and when we are simply "re-incarnating" it?

21. Here's the kicker. All our thinking and living is enculturated. Culture is not simply something that is "out there." The church has a culture -- in fact many cultures and subcultures. Similarly, culture is not "buy one, get them all." Simplistic worldview thinking often suggests that if you accept one piece or element of a worldview, you are accepting the whole thing. This is the fallacy of composition.

I am amazed at how ludicrous such thinking is, and yet it is very common. "You believe the government can run the post office; therefore, you are a communist." It is nothing but another example of binary thinking. If the government were to run health care, we would be socialist. This is ludicrous illogic because, as we will see, there is a spectrum of possible degrees to which the government might administrate society.

With regard to the incorporation of culture into one's faith, I would argue that some of those who most point the finger toward others typically have significantly mixed their own faith with foreign cultural elements. Indeed, it is possible that some of the criticisms of other Christians can actually reveal foreign elements in one's own faith.

Let me use the issue of women in ministry as a case study. I come from a tradition that has ordained women since the 1800s. I like to say that we were ordaining women before it was cool. My tradition was part of the women's rights movement -- but the one in the mid-1800s when the question was whether women might vote and have fundamental rights that all but the most extreme assume today.

My old friend Kerry Kind used to sharply contrast that 1800s movement from the modern feminist movement of the 1950s and thereafter. I wasn't sure I completely saw the difference, but I could see what he was trying to do. He was basically saying, "The modern feminist movement might be worldly, but the one we were a part of wasn't." 

In my mind, the fundamental equality of women with men is a core New Testament principle. It is a natural implication of the Day of Pentecost, captured in the fact that sons and daughters would now prophesy (Acts 2:17). Of course, women prophesy in the Old Testament as well (Judg. 4:4). In Christ, women are restored from Eve's sin and thus in Christ there is not "male and female" (Gal. 3:28).

It all makes sense because women are also created in the image of God. In 2 Kings 22:13-15, the prophetess Huldah is a higher spiritual authority than the high priest himself. In Acts 18:26, Priscilla teaches and disciples Apollos at Ephesus. In Romans 16:1, Phoebe is a deacon. In Romans 16:7, Junia may actually be referred to as an apostle. 

For all these reasons, there are strong biblical grounds to believe that women can minister to men on any level. The Holy Spirit is the great equalizer. And, to be frank, there are no logical or universal experiential reasons that make any sense against it.

But there are some "clobber verses" that are used to argue for the contrary position. A clobber verse is a verse that a herd member slaps down and says, "Bam! You can't do that because of this verse." As you might expect, I think the motivations often have little to do with Scripture. They are "prooftexts" that are used to say, "My group is right and you are wrong." They are tools the elephant rider uses to justify where the elephant wants to go. They take a complex issue and say, "You don't have to think because I have this verse."

22. 1 Timothy 2:12 is the strongest of these verses. But I think it will be more helpful to look at how the household codes of Colossians 3:18-4:1; Ephesians 5:21-6:9; and 1 Peter 2:18-3:7 might play out in our faith. I have often heard individuals present an argument like the following:

1. Husbands are the "heads" of their wives, the authority over them.
2. If a wife were a lead pastor, that would make her an authority over her husband in the congregation.
3. Therefore, a wife cannot be a senior pastor.

This all makes perfectly logical sense. What's the problem, Ken? The problem is that the Bible never thinks this way. Deborah is married in Judges 4:4, yet she is the highest political authority in the land. Her husband is mentioned, but there is no sense that his existence inhibits her function as a prophetess at all. Similarly, Huldah is married in 2 Kings 22:14. But her husband has nothing to do with her spiritual authority. He is not consulted. She is.

The bottom line is that the argument above, as logical as it seems, is not biblical. Indeed, 1 Corinthians 11 is a balancing act between giving proper respect to a woman's husband -- by veiling her hair in worship -- and her speaking to or for God in a worship setting by praying or prophesying in worship. The headship of her husband and her exercise of spiritual authority (cf. 1 Cor. 11:10) are two completely distinct questions.

Now I'm going to give some logic of my own:

1. The use of the husband-headship framework was not distinctly Christian. In fact, it is right there in Aristotle 400 years before Paul used it. [27]
2. What was distinctive about New Testament thinking on this issue was movement toward equal value and the authority of women under the power of the Holy Spirit.
3. Therefore, husband-headship language in Scripture is part of the incarnation of the gospel into the cultural context of Paul (and Peter's) churches. It is not a core dimension of biblical revelation.
4. Therefore, in a context today where we can live out the ideal more fully, God's perfect will is for us to play out the full equality and participation of women in ministry and the home.

Let me spell out the consequences of what I'm saying here. I am saying that in fact it is the complementarian -- the person who insists that the woman is equal but fits in a distinct box (or jail) of God's creation -- who is inserting inappropriate culture into the gospel. It is the same culture that was inserted into the gospel in Paul's later days, but it was cultural then too. [28] He or she has mistaken fallen patriarchal culture for the fundamental nature of the kingdom. As Jesus says in Mark 12:25 -- women are not "given" in marriage in the kingdom. They are fully equal. And if we can move closer to the kingdom now here on earth, why wouldn't we?

23. I would like to argue that much rhetoric about Christians caving into culture often comes from groups who do not realize how much they have been assimilated into a culture. However, it is not a secular culture. It is a traditional Christian culture. The Gospel analogy is the Pharisees of Mark 7 who could not tell the difference between the traditions of their elders and the core values of the Old Testament. In the same way, many Christians may be riding the wave of a cultural understanding without knowing it. 

What makes this hard to see is because the Christians they are accusing may seem to align more with the world on a specific issue. Take the issue of women in ministry and leadership. The world says yes. The Wesleyan (my church) says yes. The conservative Christian says no. See. It looks like the Wesleyan has assimilated to a worldly position.

But let's flash back 150 years. The Wesleyan says, "Slavery is an offense to the gospel." The Princeton Calvinist says, "You just don't want to obey the Bible. Colossians tells slaves to obey their masters. You are just assimilating to the cultural values of the North and fighting against what God has taught in Scripture."

However, both sides used biblical passages to support their positions. The one that the Princeton Calvinists used was one relating to first century social order. It was a "precept" or a specific instruction in a particular time and place. The Christian abolitionists, on the other hand, were referring to a timeless value or principle -- the fact that all humans are created in God's image and are loved by him without partiality (Acts 10:34). 

The abolitionists weren't wanting to disobey God. They were trying to play out the core values of Scripture in the American context. It only seemed like they were fighting the Bible because of the antebellum (Christian) culture of the South. Both sides were ensconced in different cultures. One looked to timeless principles to apply Scripture differently in a different time. The other looked to time-bound precepts to resist the more fundamental principles of Scripture. I would argue the same dynamic is happening once again today with regard to women.

Today, there may be individuals who have the right values but faulty ideas. And there may be indivdiduals today who have the right ideas but the wrong values. It is not a sin to have a faulty understanding. It is a sin to play out faulty values. It is better to be right in your heart and wrong in your head than to be right in your head and wrong in your heart.

24. God is love, 1 John 4:7-8 say. I have received varied push back on the way I play out this fundamental truth about God's nature. "You're forgetting the other side, Ken," someone might say... "the part where he blows people away." No doubt I have been accused of absorbing "moral therapeutic deism" from the culture.

But I take the claim in Scripture that God is love seriously. I have chickens. I care for those chickens. I protect those chickens. I rescue those chickens. I try to modify the behavior of those chickens (i.e., discipline them). I'm not a permissive "parent" to them except that I want the best of chicken life for them within reason.

I'm a better chicken god than the god of many Christians is toward the world. Either God is love or he isn't. I abhor the attempt of some to redefine love into something it isn't. "Love is whatever God does by definition," they might say. "So if God fries someone, that's loving." Hogwash. On the human plane, love meant to be disposed to act in the best interests of others. And that's what it meant to say that God is love in the Bible.

Any idea a Christian might have that works contrary to love is a compromising of the gospel. It doesn't matter if you can find a prooftext in the Bible. Either God is love or he isn't.

Christ the transformer of culture...

[26] Christian Smith, Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers, Oxford University, 2009.

[27] Aristotle, Politics 1253b.

[28] I believe we can see a movement on this question in Paul's writings for practical reasons. In Galatians, he gives the radical position of equality in Galatians 3:28. But the elevation of women created such problems in the social structures of the day that he walks a tight rope. 1 Corinthians 11 is a brilliant balancing act between the authority of women and the sexual/household tensions of men and women being together in close quarters. 1 Timothy is in full order-making mode. 

But we don't have these problems today. We can play out Galatians and Acts! How ironic it would be if we insisted instead on what Paul calls the "weak and beggarly" aspects of earthly culture while rejecting the heavenly trajectory (cf. Gal. 4:9; Col. 2:8)!

3.3 Assumptions about Christ and Culture

Chapter 3 of the philosophical quest continues. What do you think of something like this as a title: I'm Right. You're Wrong: A Pilgrim's Philosophical Progress

1.1 Unexamined Assumptions
1.2 "Unitary" Thinking
2.1 Binary Thinking in Ethics
2.2 Contextualization in Missions
2.3 Beyond Relativism and Absolutes
3.1 Setting the Stage for Political Conversation
3.2 Binary Thinking in Political Thinking
_____________________________

11. I have'long appreciated some advice that the former president of Fuller Seminary, Richard Mouw, once gave to pastors in relation to politics. He suggested that pastors try to stick primarily to the big principles of Scripture and faith in their preaching rather than advocating for specific candidates or legislation. In an article he wrote in 2010, "Carl Henry Was Right," [15] Mouw argued that pastors are not likely to be experts on subjects like economics or climate change, so it is better not to take strong positions from the pulpit on such matters. Further, if you are ministering to a community that is like the kingdom of God, it will not likely be politically monolithic. If you are ministering to citizens of the kingdom of God, your congregation will tend to be broader than one herd. 

For these reasons and others, Mouw suggested that his old mentor C. F. H. Henry (1913-2003) was right when he told him to focus on the fundamental principles in his preaching more than on concrete policies, laws, or candidates. Henry of course was one of the shapers of modern evangelicalism in the 1940s and 50s. And this is of course the approach that Billy Graham himself took throughout his public ministry. [16] 

12. Are there ever times to speak out on specific candidates and concrete issues? I think the answer has to be yes. Our minds immediately go to Nazi Germany. There's the famous quote by Martin Niemöller: "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me." [17]  

There is a similar quote from Martin Luther King, Jr. during the civil rights conflicts of the 1960s. "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." [18] King indicated that his silent "allies" hurt more than his outright enemies. Another sentiment of the same thrust is often attributed to the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." [19]

13. The problem is that Haidt's elephant in us will seize on these rallying cries when the situation is not as clear or as dire as we think. For the last ten years, various voices have been comparing the American political situation to that of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. [20] The ironic thing is that both "sides" have made such comparisons. 

The 2024 movie Bonhoeffer was said to be inspired in part by the work of Eric Metaxas on Bonhoeffer. [21] Metaxas is a Trump supporter and would consider himself a strong conservative. In his hands, Bonhoeffer is a model for conservatives fighting to stop the fascist left from taking away American freedoms such as the freedom to worship in person during the pandemic or the right for anyone to have a gun. He would view DEI initiatives (diversity, equity, and inclusion) as oppressive to white men whom he believes are often more qualified than some women and people of color being promoted ahead of them.

Ironically, the "other side" might also look to Bonhoeffer and Niemöller as models. Where Niemöller spoke of the Nazis coming for the Jews, comparisons are made to ICE coming for undocumented immigrants in the night (and sometimes documented ones). Rhetoric of arresting political enemies is taken not as idle talk or provocation but as real intent and hints of a possible future. Rhetoric and actions meant to squelch the access and voice of the media to the government are likened to similar moves under authoritarian regimes.

Despite Godwin's Law, [22] it is always possible that a situation will arise somewhere where the comparison of a situation to that of Hitler will actually be appropriate. Up to this point, America has not seemed to cross that definitive line. Voices of protest can thus sound like "the boy who cried Hitler." It might help us if we could see into alternative universes where we could see if our dire predictions actually came true under slightly different circumstances. [23]

Surely there is a time to speak out for others who are being persecuted or oppressed. Surely there is a time to hide Jews from the Nazis, runaway slaves, or hunted groups. Is there a time to protest or even to fight?

14. In normal times, I have personally found some version of H. Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture to provide a helpful lens through which to look at the various assumptions Christians have toward the broader culture. [24] Certainly, there have been some strong critiques of his model. But I find that the model can be helpful at uncovering unexamined assumptions we often have on how Christians should engage the culture around them.

Niebuhr identified five broad approaches to the way Christians engage the surrounding culture. The first he called "Christ against culture." The key dynamic here is separation. The broader culture and the workings of government are seen as foreign to the church at best, hostile at worst. "Come out from among them and be separate" is the sentiment (2 Cor. 6:17).

This model probably seems obvious to Christians who live in contexts where they are persecuted. The thought of taking over their country or asserting major public influence probably seems absurd. The best options are to hunker down and endure. In some cases, Christians have moved away from society, whether to the country or even out of the country. The Pilgrims and Puritans came to America in large part to escape a society. The Amish are a classic example.

My old friend Keith Drury used to tell how his father would say during election season, "I wonder who they'll pick for their President." He would vote, but somehow he strongly distinguished his kingdom citizenship from his participation in the American political system. Later in the book, I will argue that this is a wise approach -- engagement without complete identification.

15. This would largely seem to be the situation of the New Testament church. Scot McKnight has described 1 Peter as a defensive strategy in a context where believers feel like exiles and foreigners (1 Pet. 2:11). [25] It was not the time to abolish slavery or play out the full status of women in the kingdom. In terms of its social advice, 1 Peter basically tells Christians not to make waves in the society (1 Pet. 2:12).

When Jesus is asked about paying taxes, he effectively says that Roman coins have nothing to do with the kingdom of God. "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's" (Mark 12:13-17). But far more importantly, "Give to God what belongs to God." God's economics are something completely different from the secular world of money. 

Paul similarly tells both the Corinthians and the Romans that it is not their job to judge the world (1 Cor. 5:12-13; Rom. 12:19). That is God's job. He instructs the Romans to live peacefully with those outside the church and let God take care of them.

If you grow up under this paradigm, your default might be to assume that this is simply the way Christians operate in the world. Growing up with a connection to the conservative holiness movement, this sense of separation from the world was strong in my childhood culture. I assumed that none of the other students at my public middle or high school were Christians because they were not my kind of Christian. I was weird, and I knew it.

For women in that movement especially, you just look different. You may wear your hair in a bun. You only wear skirts and dresses. You assume that you are "peculiar" in everyone else's eyes (cf. Deut. 14:2 in the King James). When my classmates went to movies or had dances, I did not participate. As a friend wrote in my high school yearbook, "You are the most religious person I know."

Later in the book, I will argue that it is essential that Christians distinguish between their identity as a believer and "the world." The world can have good in it, but it is still a realm where Sin holds powerful sway. A "theocracy" -- where God hypothetically governs -- would be tainted from Day 1 because humans would inevitably be the ones to interpret and administrate God's wishes. The period of the judges in Israel's history was far from morally pretty. 

This is even true of the church. The true Church is "invisible" in the sense that it cannot be identified with any earthly organization. The pope is not infallible even if he speaks ex cathedra. No human is infallible. No organization is infallible because people are involved. As Lord Acton put it, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrups absolutely." There are no doubt exceptions, but it is a worthy warning.

16. I have just hinted at another of Niebuhr's options: Christ above culture. Call it the theocracy option. This is when Christians of some stripe try to take over the government or to make society their kind of Christian by force. This is the approach that is most in play at the moment in America. The much discussed "Project 2025" is basically an attempt to force American society to follow the Christian rules as they are understood by a certain segment of American Christianity.

The Christ over culture option has never seemed to turn out well. In Europe during the Reformation, you had Catholics burning Protestants at the stake and Protestants burning Catholics at the stake. You had the congregants of Zwingli in Switzerland drowning Anabaptists. You had Calvinists persecuting Arminians. It seems like it often turns out to be Christians persecuting others in the name of Christ. 

Change the names to another religion and you have the Sunnis killing the Shiites or vice versa. You have Muslims setting up Sharia law to make sure everyone practices Islam the right way. Every group in such cases says it is simply standing up for God. But it looks similar to human herds being human herds. 

17. "Christ against culture" can easily blur into "Christ above culture" when it is given a chance. The Puritans (or separatists) left England because they were being persecuted. Then they established a Puritan colony run by Puritan understandings of Christianity in New England. Those who interpreted the Bible differently from them were expelled or put to death. Important to note that the Puritans only believed in religious freedom for themselves -- not for others.

I would argue that we see similar dynamics in play among some Christians today as well. Some who have spoken much about religious freedom seem to have really meant freedom for them to live out their faith how they want to. But, given the chance, they would enact legislation to force the rest of America to live under many of their religious understandings. They do this in the name of the Bible and God -- as "religion above culture" always does whatever the religion.

The problem, again, is that God and the Bible have to be interpreted. Inevitably, it is an interpretation of God and the Bible that is forced on the rest of society. For example, many Christians think of God an an authoritarian ruler. Perhaps God is an angry father who insists the children do as they are told... or else. Where did they get this assumption? Quite possibly from the way their fathers raised them, which came from how his father raised him. These unexamined assumptions were instilled in them perhaps as they were punished as a child.

Interestingly, those who believe God chooses who will be saved without any input on our part (unconditional predestination) may also assume that society should be forced to conform to God's will as they understand it. They may assume that what is right must be forced on the world not just in the end but right now. In my opinion, these impulses usually involve unexamined assumptions. For example, my own theological tradition would naturally favor a different approach, in my opinion.

Which Christian rules would we want to force the rest of society to keep? It seems to be a moving target. Should we outlaw divorce? Homosexuality? Women in leadership? These were once illegal or prohibited. I don't think the "Christ above culture" forces of the moment would prohibit divorce, for example. On the other hand, they would certainly want to prevent gay marriage. 

Yet after the election of Trump a second time, there were voices about ending no fault divorce, which once upon a time made it much easier for an abused woman to divorce her husband. Such voices have not been in play for over fifty years, a strikingly new debate to surface in the public sphere. What we feel comfortable outlawing on a societal level changes -- sometimes very quickly.

When John Calvin (1509-64) was in control of Geneva, the laws correlated strongly with his understanding of biblical law. This was great if you agreed with his interpretations. It wasn't so great if you didn't. Are there people who were burned at the stake who will be in the kingdom of God? I have little doubt but that some of those killed will be in the kingdom while their executioners may not.

There is a story, probably not true, that the famous British preacher Charles Spurgeon was once asked why the Baptists never burned anyone at the stake. In the story, he answers that they simply were never in power. The implication is that religion should not be put in charge of the government or else oppression is bound to result. The Founding Fathers, it would seem, agreed. 

18. There are other options. As an Arminian...

[15] Richard Mouw, "Carl Henry Was Right," Christianity Today (January, 2010).

[16] It seems clear to me that Graham was actually quite conservative politically. He was a southern Democrat in his early years but then switched with other southern Democrats to have Republican sympathies in his later life. I believe he privately preferred Nixon and Trump. Despite these views, he did not promote his private sympathies publically, following the philosophy of Henry and Mouw.

[17] United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-niemoeller-first-they-came-for-the-socialists.

[18] Martin Luther King Jr., The Trumpet of Conscience (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 11

[19] No exact quote of this sort can bre found in Burke's actual writings. However, some similar statements can be found in Edmund Burke, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, 1770.

[20] Godwin's Law is the idea that the longer an online discussion goes, the more likely it is that a comparison to Nazi Germany or Hitler will arise. 

[21] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010).

[22] See n.20.

[23] I don't actually believe in alternative universes. However, the concept is useful.

[24] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper & Row, 1951)

[25] Scot McKnight, 1 Peter, The NIV Application Commentary. Zondervan Academic, 1996.

I (Still) Believe: Walter Brueggemann

This week's sample from John Byron and Joel Lohr's, I (Still) Believe is Walter Brueggemann. Last week we sampled the chapter on Richard Bauckham.

1. The name of Walter Brueggeman will be familiar to many. The work that put him on the radar of many of us was The Prophetic Imagination, in which he traces the rise of power in the Old Testament and then shows the prophetic critique of that power. He is thus a champion for those who emphasize social justice and the social dimensions of the gospel.

In this chapter, we catch a possible hint of the origins of that emphasis in his childhood. His father was a dirt poor pastor for a community with extensive financial resources.

2. Brueggemann grew up in the "Evangelical and Reformed Church," which at the time he was being ordained merged to form the United Church of Christ. I have of course heard of the UCC, but knew nothing of its origins. It goes back to 1817 and Prussia when the king of Prussia got tired of the Lutherans and Calvinists fighting each other theologically and created a "Prussian Union." Because theology could not be the uniting point of the church, its principle of unity became more pietist and social justice focused.

Since theology was not the focus of Brueggemann's tradition, modernism did not create a serious crisis for his tradition. By the time he was born, his pastors and teachers already knew about German criticism but it was of little concern to them. The focus of preaching was on social justice and on an irenic spirit. He speaks of his rural home community: "The contrast between an evangelical congregation [his] and that of the Missouri Synod could not have been sharper. The Missouri Synod was (and continues to be) militantly exclusionary and vigilant about its doctrinal purity in a way that let the evangelical church be seen, by contrast, as wondrously free and open" (31).

This comment sparked a question about our current religious landscape in the US. I wondered if you took the fervor and organizational skill of a mega-church pastor and put it in a UCC pastor, might not that tradition be able to spark a revival among the nones right now, to save them from the abandonment of Christianity in a way that no remnant church is likely to do at this time? I don't expect it to happen, of course.

3. I'm probably telling too much. Pre-order the book! Brueggemann tells of the important teacher influences of his life at Elmhurst College and Eden Seminary. The Niebuhr's are mentioned, along with James Muilenburg, Brevard Childs, and Paul Ricoeur. His teachers/influences enabled him to listen to the story of the Old Testament as a story full of truths, rather than to get preoccupied with questions of historicity, along with source and form analysis.

"When our certitudes and our formulations of them are small, they cannot withstand the force of biblical criticism" (41). "I have never felt that critical study has in any way jeopardized my faith" (40). "The church is my 'natural habitat' for work" (41).

4. He gives some good advice at the end of the chapter, including "Do not arrive too soon at fixed, settled positions" (41). "Read widely and deeply." "Remember that we are not the first ones to struggle with these issues" (42). And perhaps most importantly, "We are always the 'junior partner' in interpretation. The senior partner is God's own Spirit."

5. Ricoeur has played a similar role in my own ability to transcend the "smally formulated certitudes" of fundamentalism. Brueggemann mentions Ricoeur's "orientation-disorientation-reorientation" schema. A solid training in biblical studies will often lead to disorientation to those who grew up in narrow circles. But this need not lead to a loss of faith. Faith-ful scholars like Brueggemann show us one way.

Bible, Christians, Government

Here's the third and maybe second to last post about the conference I attended last week at Wheaton called "Government, Foreign Assistance, and the Mission of God in the World." Previous posts include:

Basic Thrust
Why Government should aid...

The first presentation of the conference was on the biblical basis for governmental assistance. The presentation focused on Psalm 72 and Romans 13. I imagine that I wasn't the only one that found this line a little shaky. One professor from Denver Seminary used the word "tricky."

It's always tricky in my mind to apply the civil dimensions of the Old Testament to today. Governments are usually a given rather than something we can apply the Bible to. What is different about the US is that it is a democracy. Within the limits of the Constitution, we can as a people "bend the power of the United States" in certain directions, as long as they we do not violate the establishment of religion clause.

I've never found Romans 13 very helpful on these issues either. Statements in the Bible usually give a snapshot of the truth that is particularly relevant to a place and time. Romans 13 is nothing like an absolute philosophical statement on the timeless purpose of government. Governments punish wrongdoers. Yep.

But they can do much, much, more and they often do less. In fact, this was the same government that put Paul to death, reflecting the simple fact that governments more often than not fail at one of their fundamental purposes. Indeed, we cannot be completely sure that there is not an element of rhetoric in Romans 11--that Paul is giving a more idealistic picture of Rome than he himself believed, suggesting what Rome should be like rather than how it is.

Interestingly, the most helpful part of the conference for me on this score came in the last 20 minutes of the conference in a comment from Cheryl Sanders of Howard University. She mentioned the Joseph story of Genesis. When someone questioned this example, wondering if Pharaoh was really a model for government, her response was, to me, very insightful. It amounted to "Exactly." In so many words, Pharaoh embodies all the ambiguities of the people of God engaging with worldly powers.

So I propose the following model of Christian-state relationship. First and foremost, the people of God should never confuse themselves with worldly powers. Even when we are in government, even if Billy Graham were to become President of the United States, we must always distinguish the people of God, the Church, from the powers of this world.

If we take all the kings of Israel and Judah, far more were not kings after God's own heart than were. And the period of the judges was far from an operational theocracy. In short, this distinction applies even to ancient Israel, which is usually used as the model for those groups that most wish to identify church and state.

What we find in the story of Joseph and Pharaoh or Daniel and Nebuchanezzar or Nehemiah with Persia or Esther with Artaxerxes or Paul with Rome is that there is always a "dancing with the devil" dimension to any relationship between the people of God and government. God can and does use government to forward His will. God uses specific individuals at specific times and places to move governments in the right direction.

But it's often like playing with a snake. It can bite you. The relationship between people of God and worldly powers is ambiguous. It can be good. I can be bad. It is not a simple formula. It is not always Christ versus culture. It is not always Christ within culture. And this side of eternity it will never be finally transformed any more than our flesh is ever permanently removed from play. The relationship is dynamic.

I am not advocating a two kingdoms model because I am not suggesting that Christians can give up their Christian identity in their involvement with worldly powers. I am not advocating a Christ versus culture model where one withdraws from political engagement. I am advocating the attempt to intersect the kingdom of God with the kingdom of this world as much as possible to "bend" it.

Although I would not make too much of the supposed Christian foundations of America, there is a great deal of commonality between fundamental Christian values and fundamental American principles. More than most other nations in history, we have the opportunity to "bend the power of the United States" in Christian directions. As was also pointed out at the conference, here we are the government, in a sense.

But make no mistake, the US government operates on the basis of a social contract between everyone living here, which includes many non-Christians. No law or policy that is specifically Christian--and not generally beneficial--will stand the test of time. This is why the entire Christian lobby against gay marriage will eventually fail and probably is, in my suspicion, a waste of energy, an exercise in futility.

But it will also often be possible to argue for Christian goals within the language of the US Constitution. For example, it is in the best interest of the US government to alleviate poverty in those parts of the world that grow terrorists. The current problems around the world with terrorism stem more than anything else to the impoverishment of peoples. So Christians are motivated to eliminate poverty because we are following the mandates of Christ. But we can "bend the power of the United States" using an argument that achieves a similar end but using the language of national self-interest.

In the end, my mind was drawn to the Parable of the Unjust Steward in Luke 16. This parable seems filled with all the ambiguity of the relationship between the people of God and worldly power. As in all of Luke, money is viewed as something outside the kingdom of God. It is morally dubious at best. This strange parable seems to say, Be very, very sharp when dealing with the world. You are handling a dangerous thing, like a snake. Be very shrewd. Be wise as a serpent, but harmless as a dove.

Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture

I wish I had a list of the thinkers/books that have rocked my world over the years on various subjects. Thomas Kuhn and Eric Erikson had that effect on me in college. The Myers-Briggs personality inventory was great because it helped me understand how other people think. Bruce Malina added a third dimension to my understanding of the New Testament. Mary Douglas unlocked clean and unclean for me.

Ludwig Wittgenstein did it with language, with G. B. Caird's Language and Imagery of the Bible close behind. Michel Foucault batted Kuhn in. And almost every lunch with Keith Drury is a new insight into human politics and good leadership.

Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture is another groundbreaking work. I used his five point typology last night in philosophy class as a tool for the students to take out their assumptions about how to be Christian in the world and examine them. I argued that most of us are not even aware that we have a position on the relationship between Christ and culture. We tend to assume our intuitive position is the position with little awareness of any other option.

As usual, I have made Niebuhr my own. As I thought Mark Noll inappropriately gave places like Westminster Theological Seminary a pass (non-fundamentalist), I think it is wrong to put Calvin in the fifth, preferred category. You'll see.

1. Christ against Culture
This is the separatist view, the Christian perspective that tries to isolate itself as much as possible from the world. These are Quakers and my forebears--the people who located Houghton an hour away from the nearest McDonalds (although, to be fair, before trains I think the location was quite accessible along the Genesee River).

Holiness revivalism was probably in part a reaction to the growing secularization of America after the Civil War. My ancestors retreated from the modernism of the world into a more experiential and less heady form of Christianity. Much of the NT takes this tact in a world where changing the world seemed impossible through the normal channels. 1 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation, Jesus and Paul in relation to the Roman empire.

2. Christ in Culture
This is Christianity when it unthinkingly equates cultural values with Christian values. It is liberal Christianity when it reflects the broader culture and conservative culture during the same. What are considered the best cultural values are Christian values. It is confusing nationalism for Christianity in Nazi Germany or Bush America. It is thinking all religions are basically different versions of the same thing under the heading of loving your neighbor.

3. Christ above Culture
This is Christianity when enough of a culture is in agreement with it that it is empowered to fix the part that doesn't agree (i.e., to force the rest to obey its understanding). These are the Christian lobbyists in Washington, the Dobson machine, and the old Moral Majority. We'll see if Sojourners turns out to have this ilk. There is another way.

From my perspective, this was Calvin in Geneva with those who did not agree with him. Indeed, in my view this is the consummate Calvinist perspective (Niebuhr would disagree, I suspect) because it does not assume free will. It assumes a God whose sovereignty demands that others be forced to obey His will in the here and now, not just when Christ returns.

I think there is a more "god-ly" way to change the world.

4. Christ and Culture in Paradox
This is Luther. The world is thoroughly sinful and unredeemable. When we are dealing in the matters of the world, we cannot help but find ourselves dirty. The things of Christ are in a completely different category. This is the separation of church and state. This is the non-integration of faith and learning. When I'm doing science, it has nothing to do with doing religion. When I'm doing economics, it has nothing to do with my religion. I'm a business person following the bottom line during the week, and I worship God on Sunday.

5. Christ the Transformer of Culture
Obviously this is the category Niebuhr favors, and I do too once I have given it a Wesleyan-Arminian spin. Christ eats with sinners and does not separate from them to remain clean (Christ against culture). Christ recognizes the points where culture needs to be critiqued (Christ of culture) and doesn't consider it a lost cause (Christ and culture in paradox).

My Wesleyan spin is that Christ the transformer does not force the world to conform by changing the laws to mirror Christian values (Christ above culture) but because God wants people to choose Him of their own free will, He tries to woo them to change. He tries to influence them. He tries to change their attitudes so that their lives change.

I'm not saying that there is no time to "fix" America by changing its laws. I'm saying it's much preferable to teach and inspire a person to fish than to force one to eat a fish.