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.
No comments:
Post a Comment