http://reformedreasons.blogspot.com/2012/11/incoherence-of-political-activism-in.html
Asusual, Ed spends a lot of time repeating his oft-refuted contentions, so I’llskip over that.
SteveHays writes, “Of course, I never said the only effective method of opposing“something” is political activism. Rather we were dealing with the specificcase of public school indoctrination. And I said that “if you reject Christianpolitical activism, then you have no effective means of opposing the seculareducation establishment.”
Thisrepresents the crux of Steve’s argument. It is firmly utilitarian, firmlypragmatic, and in my opinion, it fails to focus on loving the right behaviorfor the right reason.
Actually,I’m just responding to Ed on his own terms. This is how he chose to frame theissue:
Theeducational institutions play a strategic role in the liberal indoctrination ofour children and in my view...
Hehimself flagged that example as a serious problem. So what’s the solution, if any?
Thesource of the problem is political. The excuse that public schools use toindoctrinate students in secular ideology consists of Supreme Court rulingswhich claim that it’s unconstitutional for the state to promote the Christianfaith.
Sincethe source of the problem is political, the only direct solution is political.
Moreover,there is no sound exegetical support for Steve’s argument. In rebuttal afterrebuttal, rather than appeal to specific Scriptures rightly interpreted, Stevehas been very dismissive about my charge.
i)Needless to say, there’s no specific Scripture that says “The educationalinstitutions play a strategic role in the liberal indoctrination of ourchildren.”
Why doesEd demand a specifically Scriptural solution to a problem that’s not aspecifically Scriptural problem? He’s the one who highlighted this problem.
ii)Moreover, what’s wrong with direct solutions? If I have a persistent toothache,I go to the dentist. Do I need specific Scriptural justification for thatsolution?
Is it“firmly utilitarian, firmly pragmatic,” for me to visit the dentist if I have apersistent toothache? And even if it were, so what?
If Ineed to drive across a stream everyday, is it okay for me to build a bridge? Oris that too “utilitarian,” too “pragmatic”? Should I just pray for a bridge to miraculously materialize?
iii)Ed’s theological method is flawed. It’s a parody of sola Scriptura. But wedon’t need specific Scriptural warrant for everything we do. For instance, ifScripture lays down a general principle with various logical implications andapplications, that will suffice. The specificity is logically implicit ratherthan verbally explicit.
Christianspreaching the gospel out of love for obeying God, not because they think theycan change the world.
Passinggood laws or repealing bad laws isn’t intended to “change the world,” but tomaking discrete changes that improve a particular situation.
Theyknow that if the world is going to change, that is the business of God.
Thatsounds fatalistic. But God often employs the instrumentality of human beings towork his will.
Their hope is that all men would come toChrist, not that their culture would be morally good.
Does Edthink we even need to have good laws? Why not repeal all laws against theft,mugging, murder, &c.
Payattention to Steve’s use of the phrase “no effective means.” Apparently, Stevethinks that Christians cannot effectively oppose secular philosophies in theuniversities unless they are politically active.
Actually,my statement didn’t single out universities.
In other words, indoctrinating yourchildren in the truth of God’s word is an ineffective way to counter theeffects of the secular university. Selecting a godly Church where the creedsare soundly biblical, the sermons expositional, the music Christ-centered, andthe youth program seriously aimed at firming up the faith of the young isineffective apparently by Steve’s way of thinking.
i) Ialready responded to that alternative. Ed presumes the freedom to practice yourfaith. Yet Ed doesn’t think Christians have a right or duty to defend theirreligious rights and liberties. In which case,Christians will lose the freedom to select a godly church with good youthprograms.
ii)Moreover, Ed exhibits a callous attitude towards the fate of kids who don’thave Christian parents. Should we just abandon them to atheism?
Stevecriticizes my position that one can oppose the secular university with itsgodless philosophies by publically condemning them and speaking out againstthem. We can oppose them by arming our children with the truth and with goodcritical thinking skills. We can oppose them by preaching the gospel andcarrying on with the mission of the Church.
i) Edkeeps repeating the same equivocal usage. The question is not whether you can“oppose” it, but whether your methods are “effective.” Merely “condemning” or“speaking out” against liberal indoctrination in public education does nothingto prevent or lessen liberal indoctrination in public education. It’s likeshouting at a bulldozer or a freight train. You can shout until you’re hoarse,but that won’t keep the train or bulldozer from running right over you.
ii) And,once again, he takes for granted the civil right of Christian parents to raisetheir kids in the faith; the civil right of pastors to preach the gospel. Yethe mocks the notion that Christians should defend their religious rights. Theman is schizophrenic.
Stevesays, So what, if anything, does he propose to do about it? To merely “speakout” against public school indoctrination is not an “effective” means ofopposing it. To merely be “against” something is not an “effective” means ofopposing it. Rather, Ed’s alternative is an ineffectual means of opposing it.It doesn’t change anything.
Stevefurther exposes his pragmatism by asserting that my action “doesn’t changeanything.”
How havehis actions solved the problem that he himself complained about?
WouldSteve argue that preaching the gospel is ineffectual and hence it should beabandoned in cases where it produces few to no converts?
How isthat comparison relevant to the issue at hand?
Moreover, where is Steve’s exegeticalevidence supporting his view?
He’sasking a question I already answered.
If I understand Steve correctly, he isasserting that Christians have a duty, a divine mandate to be politicallyactive. This makes it a sin for Christians to be otherwise. Indeed, this is aserious accusation. Christians must take absolute care anytime their view leadsthem to this sort of behavior. If I accuse someone of sin when they in fact arenot sinning, I have sinned. I would hope Steve would ease up a bit where itinvolves introducing the idea that we sin when we are not doing what he thinkswe should do in the political arena.
That’snot a counterargument to my argument. That’s just a complaint about theconsequences of my argument. But if my argument is sound, so what?
Stevethinks political activism is about “advancing or defending public policieswhich respect the right of Christians to discharge their divinely-mandatedduties to God and to their fellow man. And it’s also about advancing ordefending social policies which promote the common good.”
In otherwords, if we aren’t politically active, we will face an environment where wecannot discharge our divinely-mandated duties to God. I think Steve is terriblymisguided here. We may face the day when the civil authorities threaten toarrest us, our company threatens to fire us, and perhaps we may face the threatof death. However, historically speaking, the Church has often faced suchcircumstances and I would suggest that around the world, there has never been atime when Christians somewhere did not face these very conditions.
i) Ifyou’re arrested, you can’t provide for your dependents. If you’re fired, youcan’t provide for your dependents. So Ed seems to be admitting that I’m correctwhen I say “if we aren’t politically active, we will face an environment wherewe cannot discharge our divinely-mandated duties to God.”
ii) Hisresponse is not to deny my contention, but to say doesn’t matter. However, Edfails to draw an elementary distinction. It’s one thing to be unable to carryout your divinely-mandated duties due to circumstances beyond your control,quite another to put yourself in a position where you are unable to carry outyour divinely-mandated duties.
AChristian doesn’t have a right to forfeit his duties. For instance, suppose Ilive in a high crime area. I live there because (through no fault of my own) Ican’t afford to live anywhere else. Suppose I have a wife and kids.
SupposeI don’t take elementary precautions to protect my family at night. I don’t lockthe doors or bar the windows. I don’t own a gun.
If aviolent burglar breaks into my home and murders my family, I’m culpable for mynegligence. At that point there’s nothing I can do to repel the violentintruder, because I didn’t take the necessary precautions. It’s too late.
If I didtake reasonable precautions, and despite that, I’m overpowered by the burglar,then I’m not culpable.
It’smorally irresponsible to simply wait for a predictable and preventable tragedyto overtake your dependents because you didn’t step aside, but just stoodthere, twiddling your thumbs, as danger came barreling down.
AmericanChristians seem to think they have some “right” to insolate themselves frompersecution while their brothers and sisters in the rest of the world, or muchof the rest of the world, suffer.
i) Ed talkslike Medieval monks who think there’s something inherently meritorious aboutsuffering or martyrdom. Actually, we should do what we can to protectpersecuted Christians around the world from further persecution.
ii) It’s onething to remain faithful in the face of inevitable persecution, quite anotherto desert your dependents so that you can court martyrdom. There’s afundamental difference between forfeiting your duties through negligence, andbeing forced to relinquish your duties because you were powerless to resist.
Where isGod in all this?
God isin everything–including Christian political activism.
AreChristians responsible for making sure the globe experiences religious liberty,adopts Christian values, and is a really good and moral place to live?
Socialduties are concentric. Christians have greater duties to relatives thanneighbors. Greater duties to neighbors than strangers. Greater duties tobelievers than unbelievers.
Steveleans heavily on the Sinaitic Covenant in order to support his idea for doingsocial good in the culture.
Thatoversimplifies the argument. I’ve quoted OT passages. I’ve quoted NT passages.And I’ve quoted NT passages that reaffirm OT passages.
The problem with this view is that therecomes without a divine mandate. It matters not that Steve thinks it good forthe culture if it adopts the Law of Moses. I think that would be better thanthe alternative as well. That is not the problem. The problem enters whereSteve thinks this a divine imperative. There is no such imperative in the textthat instructs civil authorities to adopt the Law. Moreover, there is noimperative for the Church to do all it can to get a culture to adopt the Law.If Steve says he does not see a divine imperative then it is a moot point.Steve then argues that if we can’t apply the Mosaic Law to gentile governmentsbecause it was given to Israel, it follows that we can’t apply the book ofRomans to 21C American Christians because it was given to 1C Romans Christians.
That’s ablatant overstatement. I never suggested that civil authorities “adopt the Lawof Moses.” My argument was far more qualified, and Ed knows it. He’smisrepresenting my stated position because that’s polemically convenient forhim.
Thislogic would hold except for the fact that the Mosaic Law was given to all Jewsliving in that era and moving forward to Christ, not just those present atSinai at the time the law was given. Steve knows this and his argument here isa bit disingenuous in my opinion. Just as all Jews were held in bondage to thatlaw until the New Covenant was enacted by Christ, now all Christians are underthe tradition handed down by the apostles, the faith, the teachings of thetwelve that have as their central source, Jesus Christ. Just like the Covenantwas given at a particular place in time and all who were born after the factcame under it’s authority, the same is true for those who are born again evenif they were not born again during the first century or in Rome.
This isa good illustration of how Ed chronically oversimplifies the issue.
i) Edseems to be alluding to Gal 3:19-25. That’s the locus classicus for thepedagogical use of the law.
Keep inmind that even in that passage, Paul’s strictures are highly qualified. He saysthe law cannot justify sinners. That’s because sinners are lawbreakers ratherthan law-keepers.
He alsosays the law cannot bring life. Indeed, as he says in Romans, the law bringsdeath.
So thoseare limitations of the law. Even then, those limitations aren’t inherent in thelaw. Rather, they’re really inherent in sinners. The relationship bad men bearto good laws.
ii) Yetin Gal 5:14, Paul goes on to reaffirm Lev 19:18. That command remains in force.
And Paultreats that command as an implicit summary of the whole law. So, in thatrespect, the entire law carries over into the new covenant (Cf. Rom 13:8-10; 1Tim 1:9-10).
iii)Moreover, what kind of OT laws does Paul think were designed to drive sinnersto Christ? Any kind of law?
Paulgives us an example in Rom 7:7f., where he cites the 10thcommandment. That particular law exposes our sinful inability because it goesto the human heart. It’s not about forbidden deeds, but forbidden attitudes.Covetousness. That’s something which sinners have the least control over.
iv)Compare that to OT safety regulations:
When youbuild a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may notbring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it (Deut22:8).
28 Whenan ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its fleshshall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. 29 But if theox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned buthas not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, andits owner also shall be put to death. 30 If a ransom is imposed on him, then heshall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. 31 If itgores a man's son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to this samerule. 32 If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to theirmaster thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
33 Whena man opens a pit, or when a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox ora donkey falls into it, 34 the owner of the pit shall make restoration. Heshall give money to its owner, and the dead beast shall be his.
35 Whenone man's ox butts another's, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live oxand share its price, and the dead beast also they shall share. 36 Or if it isknown that the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner hasnot kept it in, he shall repay ox for ox, and the dead beast shall be his (Exod21:28-36).
Werethese safety regulations designed to drive sinners into the arms of Christ? Wasthe requirement to cover a pit designed to drive sinners to Christ?
Thatclaim doesn’t seriously examine the law in question. That claim doesn’tevaluate the law on its own terms.
For onething, a sinner is perfectly capable of covering a pit. That’s quite differentfrom resisting covetousness.
v)Likewise, how does Ed think the new covenant automatically abolishes laws likethese? Does the new covenant absolve believers or unbelievers of moralresponsibility to avoid putting others at grave gratuitous risk?
Is Ed avoluntarist? Does he think an OT safety regulation is just an arbitrary divinefiat? Does he think no OT law codifies an intrinsic moral norm?
vi)There is, of course, a sense in which the laws I quoted are culturebound. Thespecific illustration presupposes an agrarian economy or architectural style.
But thesame laws exemplify general principles. It’s easy to mentally update these lawsand apply them to analogous situations.
If Ihave young kids, if I buy a large property which has an open well, I have aduty to cover the well to prevent my kids from accidentally falling into thewell. Maybe put a grate over the well.
If Ihave a pit-bull that’s attacked neighbors when it was on the loose, then I’mculpable if I fail to keep it chained or adequately fenced in.
If theautomechanic tells me my brakes may give out at any time, if I can afford torepair the car, and I have alternative transportation, then I’m culpable if Icontinue driving the car and I kill a pedestrian when the brakes fail.
Or takeExod 23:4-5, which I mentioned before. Does Ed think only OT Jews had a duty todefend their family against a violent houseburglar? Does he think the newcovenant magically rescinded that duty?
The newcovenant doesn’t abrogate these principles. These involve transcultural norms.
For Edto consign the entirety of the Mosaic law to the trash bin of history is anintellectual shortcut. He refuses to examine each law on a case-by-case basis.He makes no effort to seriously consider each law on its own terms. That’s nota faithful response to God’s law.
Stevelikes to include political activism under the rubric of social responsibility.Steve contends he can get away with this reasoning because the command to honorone’s father and mother is really “quite vague.”
That wasnever my argument. Rather, I argued that commands like that carry logicalimplications.
Thisflies in the face of the perspicuity of Scripture. While not everything inScripture is equally clear, certainly the commands of Scripture areunambiguous. Steve requires a degree of equivocalness in order to postulate hisposition. God demands our love and devotion. Our love and devotion necessitatesthat we keep His commandments. Can it be that God requires us to love Him,which in turn requires us to keep vague commandments that we can’t even be surewe understand?
Edoriginally said:
Yes, weare to provide for our children and our families. However, God instructs usspecifically about how we are to do that. We are to work, to care for our own,etc.
Well,what does the fifth commandment actually say?
Honoryour father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that theLord your God is giving you (Exod 20:12).
That’sit. That’s the wording. That’s all it says.
Itdoesn’t specify how you are to honor your parents. Invoking the perspicuity ofScripture isn’t a makeweight to get more out of the verse than you can find inthe verse. The perspicuity of Scripture can’t make that command more specificthan it actually is–or is not.
Edresorts to manufactured indignation, as if I’d said something outrageous, whenI merely stating a manifest fact.
Notice Ididn’t suggest that the command’s lack of specificity is defective.
Steve’sargument that the command to honor your parents is "vague"contradicts the long-standing principle of clarity, not to mention thehistorical facts as we know them concerning the Greco-Roman and Jewishhousehold codes during this period. Both of these points serve to demonstratethat the readers would have been clear about what it means to honor one’sparents.
i) Onceagain, the 5th commandment only says as much as it says. You can’tmake it say more than it does.
i)However, the very fact that it’s so general is what opens up a wide range oflogical implications and applications. For instance, consider how Jesusinterprets the 5th commandment in Mt 15 and Mk 7.
IsChristianity on the brink of becoming a culturally subversive religion? Arepeople bitter towards Christianity because it preaches the gospel of repentanceor because they feel that Christians want to use the political system to turntheir religious codes into civil law? In other words, is the secular culturereacting to what it sees as a threat to its own freedom? I suggest that we haveto be willing to think about that possibility.
So whatif unbelievers are reacting to a perceived threat to their freedom? Why shouldthey have the freedom to euthanize the disabled or the elderly (to take oneexample)?
Why doesEd think we should allow the wicked to dictate social policy? It’s like sayingwe should allow convicts to rewrite the penal code.
I see abit of selfishness at the fundamental level of Steve’s argument. Steve doeswant to suffer persecution. He does not want the government to encroach on hisreligious freedoms. Steve and I share this goal. Steve thinks he can dosomething about it. If he just employs the right methods and is sociallyresponsible (his words), he can turn the tide back in his favor.
I don’tassume that Christian political activism will be successful. I offer noprognostications concerning its degree of success or failure.
In thenature of the case, a duty is something you perform because you’re supposed todo it, and not because success is assured. You do the best you can, leaving theresults to God.
Now,where possible, we should perform a duty in a way that’s mostly likely to beeffective. But that’s not something you can count on.
SupposeI’m a family man. I work outside the home. Suppose there’s a massive earthquakewhile I’m a work. I survive.
I have aduty to get back to my family. If my kids were at school, I should check theschool. I have a duty to reunite my scattered family. See if they are safe andunharmed. Find food and shelter.
And Ishould also think about the smartest way of getting back home. If the bridgewas destroyed, I must consider alternate routes. Can I borrow a boat?
Nowdespite my best efforts, I may fail. But I’m obligated to try.
Hedesires a life of comfort and ease in his Christian walk. Who can blame Stevefor wanting that? I want it too. The difference between Steve’s view and my ownis that I believe that God determines those things, not the Church.
i) Goddetermines everything. God determines the culture wars.
ii) Edis very cavalier about the harm his indifference would do to others.
iii)Once again, Ed acts as if there’s something meritorious or supererogatory aboutsuffering. As if we should cultivate suffering or solicit martyrdom. Like amonk walking barefoot on snow prove his piety.
I rejectthe argument that politically active evangelicals make about the relationshipbetween the believer and modern politics and culture for numerous reasons. Theargument is fundamentally incoherent. This is because they pick and choosewhich parts of the moral law they think civil authorities should enact. Thismakes the argument capricious and arbitrary. They will fight against gaymarriage but not for marriage in general. They want abortion banned but saylittle about banning adultery or Sabbath keeping. When asked about thesepoints, they resort to radical pragmatism and admit that you can’t win everybattle. You have to pick your fights. God doesn’t work like that.
To thecontrary, God puts us in a situation where some objectives are more realisticthan others. God hasn’t put us in a position where we can hope to accomplisheverything that ought to be done. Providential circumstances are, in fact, oneway of prioritizing our duties. Choosing realistic goals over lost causes.
Ed islike a bystander who sees a school bus veer off a bridge and plunge into theriver. Because he can’t save every drowning child, he refuses to save anydrowning child.
Ratherthan hearing the gospel of repentance, the culture hears the Church judging itfor its behavior and thinks it uses its political clout to force it to do as wesay.
i) Ed’scomplaint doesn’t make any sense even on his own grounds. How can you doevangelism without telling unbelievers that they are sinners? Judging sinfulbehavior is a necessary element of evangelism. What are they to repent of ifnot their wicked behavior?
ii) IfEd is still alluding to 1 Cor 5:12-13, he fails to distinguish between twodifferent senses of “judgment”:
a)punishment
b)value-judgment
“Judging”in the sense of (b) isn’t punitive. Rather, that’s a moral evaluation.
Inaddition, there’s a further distinction between
a-i)remedial church discipline
and
a-ii)retributive civil penalties
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder