More Active Posts
Front Page
Evangelical left’s rejection of reality
 |
 47 Comments |
Barack Obama’s candidacy has brought left-wing evangelicals to greater public prominence. The public association with Democratic Party politics is nothing new, of course. People like Jim Wallis, Ron Sider and Tony Campolo have a history of advising Democrats in general and the Clinton administration in particular. (For example, see “The Message Thing” by Jim Wallis, New York Times, August 5, 2005.) The “emerging church” movement has picked up this approach to the Bible and public life, giving it an ecclesiastical home.
It is always helpful to look at the part in light of the whole, and I find that Albert Wolters’ book, Creation Regained, gives a theological big picture that can help explain politics, culture and all of life. For this reason, I assign it at the beginning of my Introduction to Politics course.
Wolters describes what he calls the “creation law,” or natural law. The Lord made the world, by its very structure, to work in certain ways, whether physically, morally, psychologically, economically, etc. Wolter explains this on pp. 13-20, following it with an account of the creation mandate in relation to creation law. He defines creation law as “the totality of God’s sovereign activity toward the created cosmos” and says that “ignoring the law of creation is impossible.” If you set government policy based on bad economics — i.e. policies based on economic principles that do not correspond to the way God created the world to operate — they will be counterproductive and bring unhappy results. They won’t “work.” The question for the evangelical left and right is this: What is creation law in the various spheres of dispute?
The left accuses the right of bowing to secular conservative notions that are not found in the Bible. But by common grace, non-Christians are able to discern these creation laws, often better than Christians can. The question is whether they have discerned accurately. The left tends to focus only on the moral law (which they may or may not have right) and understand that as the exhaustive expression of God’s will. Thus, they determine their economics, for example, based entirely on the moral principles that they cull from the Bible. But of course the laws inherent in God’s creation — moral, political, economic or chemical — are fully consistent with one another. God is not incoherent. He speaks with one voice. So if their moral theology entails an impoverishing and politically enslaving economic theory, it is a good indication that their moral reading of the Bible is defective.
For example, Wolters writes, “Any theory that somehow sanctions the existence of evil in God’s good creation fails to do justice to sin’s fundamentally outrageous and blasphemous character.” An evangelical on the political left would point out that the free market economic system (“capitalism”) employs and legitimizes selfishness, and thus is ungodly and inherently sinful. But lo, it works! It not only makes a few people rich, but it raises the tide and lifts all boats. In fact, the rising tide of prosperity in free market America lifts boats all over the world!
So how do we square the dependence on sinful selfish gain and the evident correspondence of economic liberty with natural principles in God’s created order? The answer, I think, is in examining the moral premise more closely. What our hypothetical leftist called sinful selfishness is actually just reasonable self-concern. My desire to prosper is not inherently sinful. My desire to get the best product for the lowest price is not inherently sinful. These things can take sinful forms, but that does not entail an indictment of the system itself that, like all things, needs to be set within the broader context of a charitable Christian society.
 |
Topic: Academy, Editor's Choice |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: natural law, religion-and-politics |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Reporters? choice
Maybe I’m not getting it, but this seems circular to me. Are we supposed to figure out what works based on our understanding of creation law, or are we supposed to deduce creation law based on what works?
Or for that matter, doesn’t it end up in a kind of utilitarianism or pragmatism. What ever works, must work?
It’s just so weird when some people point to the mystical supernatural as the “truth” and they feel our lives should be run by the “occult”. Don’t get it. Especially, when they claim these things are the bases for “morals”. It’s just so weird.
“The left tends to focus only on the moral law (which they may or may not have right) and understand that as the exhaustive expression of God’s will. Thus, they determine their economics, for example, based entirely on the moral principles that they cull from the Bible.”
I have a question that I’d like a liberal Christian to answer.
When we are ultimately judged, before that great white throne…Do you think we will all be judged individually, or collectively?
This is a serious question. Not trying to be snarky
That great white throne?
We won’t be judged at all. There is no evidence of magic, mysticism, the occult, the supernatural. No ghosts, no angels, no spirits, no demons, no magical land of heaven or hell.
No arcane practices, praying, wishing, insense, beads, candles. None of these have any effect on anything. All evidence indicates that when you die, you are just dead.
RDean,
You’re rather obsessed with things you claim not to believe in. Quick note, though, of mere accuracy: You’ve often referred to “the occult,” and apparently you don’t realize that it is about as far from Christianity as one can get. Please do check your terms, because that is really a pretty bad error to make.
“We won’t be judged at all. There is no evidence of magic, mysticism, the occult, the supernatural. No ghosts, no angels, no spirits, no demons, no magical land of heaven or hell.
No arcane practices, praying, wishing, insense, beads, candles. None of these have any effect on anything. All evidence indicates that when you die, you are just dead.
Congratulations, RDean
You are…almost by definition, a Sadducee
Sometimes I think RDean is morphing into Ed/Qwerty.
Hey Cheryl, yeah I have no clue as to why RDEAN is answering a thread like this one. He’s about as spiritually inept as an atheist can get.
All evidence indicates that when you’re RDEAN, you are just spiritually dead.
Evangelical Christianity is definitely moving leftward. It’s inexorable; it’s the nature of the religion. Conservative Christians can’t even find a presidential candidate that suits them. No matter who the GOP nominee is, many of them will stay home, and millions of others will only vote while holding their nose. Pat Robertson is a senile old crank, Falwell and D James Kennedy are dead, Dobson won’t be on the scene much longer, at least not actively. Focus on the Family, which used to be flush with cash, can’t even meet expenses, according to a recent WoW article.
Meanwhile, Jim Wallis, who’s been kicking around for decades without making much of an impact, is suddenly becoming very prominent. He had a book a few years ago that was a best seller, and he’s got one out now that’s selling briskly. Today’s biggest TV preacher, Joel Osteen, eschews talking about “divisive” topics like abortion, gay marriage, or even sin. Probably the two most influential evangelical preachers in America are Rick Warren and Brian McLaren, both far less conservative politically than the old Christian Right, McLaren especially so.
The whole idea of fitting politics into Christianity, left or right is wrong, in my opinion. They are two very distinct things. Jesus didn’t care about politics one iota.
Night Train, I’m going to debate you on this one, but oddly, you think Evangelical Christians can’t find a candidate so they MUST be turning to the left. I don’t think so. We had one in GWB in many ways. But there are evangelicals who don’t understand that politics is about compromise and that they aren’t the ONLY Republicans in the country. The Republican party is not a Christian party. Evangelicals are but one group in the party and their influence has lessened. All these things are cyclical.
Joel Osteen, et al. have absolutely no influence over my politics. None. Nada.
(I don’t know how old RDean is, but I think I’m older, so if I go first, I hope to be able to watch his encounter with the Almighty. It’s gonna be interesting.)
Any evangelical that claims capitalism employs and legitimizes selfishness, and thus is ungodly, inherently sinful and promotes the evil rich - is a whack job of the highest order.
Nothing more socialistic or stupid was ever uttered. Evangellical Christianity is not based on mind, spirit and financially killing socialism.
#6: You’ve often referred to “the occult,” and apparently you don’t realize that it is about as far from Christianity as one can get.
Definition of Occult:
oc·cult [ ə kúlt ]
adjective
Definition:
1. supernatural or magic: relating to, involving, or characteristic of magic, witchcraft, or supernatural phenomena
2. not understandable: not capable of being understood by ordinary human beings
3. secret: secret or known only to the initiated
“Supernatural Phenomena”. Well, spirits, mysticism, demons, angels, ghosts. If these aren’t “supernatural phenomena” then I don’t know what is.
“Not understandable: not capable of being understood by ordinary human beings.” How many times have we heard it’s “God’s will” and we just don’t understand?
Just because some don’t like a word because it has certain connotations doesn’t mean it’s being used incorrectly. Religion is believing in the occult. The above is the standard definition.
su·per·nat·u·ral [ spər náchərəl ]
adjective
Definition:
1. not of natural world: relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws
2. relating to deity: relating to or attributed to a deity
3. magical: relating to or attributed to magic or the occult
What part of religion isn’t “magical” in nature? Why do the religious get upset when it’s pointed out that they believe in something just “made up”? It’s way easier to indoctrinate the young rather than find “converts”. And look at those “converts”. Ususally, the disaffected, the disenfranchised, those who come from a religion even more magical than Christianity. It’s very difficult to be convinced into believing in the occult if you don’t have any arcane beliefs to begin with. We are all born atheist. We have to be indoctrinated into the supernatural at a very young age when we are still suseptable. Why is that so difficult to discuss. You know if there were a shred of evidence, everyone would become a believer. Who doesn’t want to believe that someone is watching out for them?
RDean writes: “You know if there were a shred of evidence, everyone would become a believer.”
And yet there are, and have been, so many believers. Every last one of us, supposedly, is totally duped — but you’re not. Not that many here haven’t provided you with “evidence.”
RDean also writes: “Who doesn’t want to believe that someone is watching out for them?”
Would that include you?
Cheryl, I’m surprised that you, a professional editor, didn’t know the meaning of “occult”, and evidently, like most people, thought it meant something like “satanic” .
Night Train
The occult has nothing to do with Christianity. Your mixed up view of definitions won’t change the meaning of the ‘occult’. It is the supernatural phenomena of evil, which would be witchcraft, and magic which is the opposite of GOD Almighty and His creation, His Son and the miracles which He performed while on earth.
This appears to be just another way for you to entertain yourself today, ….. it didn’t work!
The LORD doesn’t perform magic.
OCCULTISM
Definition:
belief in supernatural forces: the belief in and study of magic, witchcraft, or supernatural phenomena
That’s one definition, Victoria. As RDean points out, there are several others. And I’m pretty sure that Jesus walking on water, being born of a virgin, rising from the dead, etc., are all “supernatural phenomena”. To deny that they are is to deny that they’re miracles.
And God isn’t a supernatural force?
#14: RDean also writes: “Who doesn’t want to believe that someone is watching out for them?”
Would that include you?
Of course. I know that we have to watch out for ourselves. No agency of the supernatural will ever step in and “save” us. But that doesn’t stop it from being an attractive concept. A safety net. However, thinkers realize that we have to solve our own problems.
Folks, please don’t keep falling for RDEAN and NIGHT TRAIN’s tangential posts. I am interested in the original article, not definitions and arguments about occultism.
Pray for their salvation and let God take care of them.
Bob, they are outrageous attempts for ‘negative attention’- You are right, we should avoid the childish outbursts. Thanks for the reminder.
#1 ALISHA HARRIS
“Are we supposed to figure out what works based on our understanding of creation law, or are we supposed to deduce creation law based on what works?”
I think there is a little of each. I am reminded of a Proverb saying something about looking at the ant. It says it works tirelessly to gather food. I take this to mean we should be hard workers.
Any system that allows us to be less than hard workers would not be
‘ “creation law,” or natural law. The Lord made the world, by its very structure, to work in certain ways, whether physically, morally, psychologically, economically, etc.’
I think that the general European socialist system that allows a Frenchman to never be fired doesn’t require “hard work.” I would think that this system doesn’t fit “creation law.” Therefore it is not a good system.
#22 Bob:
I don’t totally disagree with you, but I would have to say that the longer I spend in the American workforce, the more convinced I am that our ostensibly meritocratic system doesn’t allow for or encourage proper rest, refreshment, and time for community, fellowship, family, study, and prayer, unless the worker is willing to buck the trend and do the difficult thing of not conforming to the workplace culture (in much the same way that a believing Frenchman would be obliged, by his worldview, to work harder than he is required).
In that way, I’m not sure that our system “fits creation law” either.
What in the world is “creation law”, anyway?
#20: Pray for their salvation and let God take care of them.
Pray = wish really hard.
Salvation = from?
Let God take care of them = like he took care of those that faced Katrina. What does God take care of now?
Night Train:
It’s my impression that it’s basically a Christianized word (only because I’ve never run across the term before now, so anyone can feel free to correct me on that one) for what guys like John Locke were talking about when they wrote on natural law.
Essentially, an absolute standard or “rule” of some kind, whether it comes from nature or the Almighty.
So for instance, in the case of work & ethics, creation or natural law is the good common sense notion that working hard will reap its rewards, and laziness won’t. From my perspective, that means that God set up the world to run that way.
Obviously, if you don’t subscribe to that idea and instead deal in positivism, then it’s totally irrelevant and you may not even agree with that idea, but I have a hunch that most people operate from those sorts of suppositions, whether or not they agree with them.
For the Christian, however, natural (or creation, in the vocabulary of this post) law must conform to what we see in the Bible for us to know it to be true.
#1 Alisa,good question. Of course economics is unlike chemistry in that it pertains essentially to human relations which are always moral in character. That is, it is governed by God’s moral law. At the same time there is a strictly technical aspect to it. (I am a political scientist, not an economist, but I have had a healthy exposure to it.) When people do business, what are they doing? They are creating wealth, seeking prosperity. With a view to that end, some economic systems work better than others. In that respect, you can discern God’s “creation law” by what “works” (i.e. creates wealth). Of course, as in all human decisions, the moral laws governs how we use those economic principles. We are stressed because we ignore God’s command to rest on the Sabbath. We are stressed because people treat one another as “human resources” comparable to “mineral resources,” i.e. as means rather than ends. These attitudes are entirely separable from the system of economic liberty called “capitalism.” We are stressed because there are increasingly more people among us with RDean’s understanding of reality (nothing personal RDean; perhaps your behavior is better than what your worldview justifies) than with the love-your-neighbor and walk-humbly-with-your-God Christian understanding that is our ever dwindling social heritage.
Of course, there is much more that needs to be said. I recommend again that anyone who is interested in the question reads Albert Wolters’ book, Creation Regained.
#23 Alssa:
A usual 8 hour American workday plus 1 hour travel each way is 10 hours or less. This leaves about 14 hours, minus 8 hours of sleep still leaves 6 hours for everything else. This should leave enough time but it doesn’t. TV? Blogging?
I am retired now. I still fill my days with stuff. not with the things I should be doing. It is not because of too much work. I just fritter away time.
Another example of creation law or natural law would be exemplified by the Pilgrims. Their governor, William Bradford, divided their communal land between the families. They prospered and lived. Communal land was a failure. Private property was a success. Too bad the Soviet Union didn’t learn from this example. The creation law might be private property is best.
As a landlord, 6 units, I have seen that this is true. Besides that, if someone wants to pour automatic transmission fluid down their bathtub drain, it is their money for the plumber or their time cleaning out the drain.
Bob . . . For most people I know, an 8 hour day plus 1 hour of travel each way is the dream!
Dear Alisa,
I am sorry that I have spelled your name so many different ways. I try but obviously failed. I wonder which creation law I got wrong this time? “Pride goeth before the fall?”
Er, just to be clear, Alisa and I are two different people, though we share some uncanny similarities. Wink.
Oops! I did it again!
Alissa, Alissa. Alissa
By the way, nice picture.
Yeah, I spelled ALISA HARRIS wrong too!
Alisa, Alisa, Alisa
I better cut and paste names from now on.
Don’t feel bad, Bob.
Alissa,
As someone mainly lurking on this thread, I’m glad you cleared that up.
Between the avatar and the different spelling of the name, I was really confused.
yes, God’s law utilizes common and moral sense. however, i fail to see christian politicians utilizing such sense…i never witnessed a white dove settle on the shoulders of capitalism or have seen the archangel michael rally at the battlelines of manifest destiny. our unchecked “prosperity” is built on imaginary credit, money that came from nowhere…and now we need foreign investors to bail us out. are own holy wars are aquisitions for oil, saddam didn’t cooperate (the fact he was evil had no bearing, but only served as a public baithook), so we took him out and now halliburton has all the contracts, the saudis are the friends of the Bush’s (yay), but the 9/11 pilots were saudi as is Bin Laden whose family have invested in the Bush family’s oil corporations for decades…God bless our soldiers for their bravery, may their casualties be not in vain. our yearn for cheaper goods and convenience, allows megacorporations to justify the operation of factories in the third world with inhumane conditions and wages so we can get that cheap pack of underwear (made in america my butt). i’m frightened for my country…yes, let the real Christians who influence policy stand up. i have been a conservative “right-wing” voting christian all this time up until the last few years…i thought I had a solid conscience about my beliefs and America’s upward mobility until i got a clue about the corporatocracy, world poverty and debt, the military-industrial complex, and the all-day-suckers called the American evangelical Christians. No more of that….
I ran out of tin-foil, just as I started crafting my new hat…So only four or five words of that made any sense.
Christianity and politics are not incredibly compatible. I think Augustine has some valuable observations on this in ‘City of God’. Politics are important, but there are more important things. You will never have a national government that can replicate a church government, and I don’t believe that is the place of a national government.
That being said, I think the ‘emerging church’ movement (am I correct in assuming this is the movement emphasizing service and other areas of ministry that are lacking in the contemporary church?) may have the church moving in the right direction, as long as ultra-conservatives thumbing their noses at the notion of helping ‘lazy’ poor people don’t have too much influence. The onus of charity should always be placed on the individual, rather than being forced about a nation of people.
haha … Yes, Alissa and Alisa are two different people. Alissa writes movie reviews and I write about everything else. I have a little cartoon gravatar and Alissa has a photo gravatar. I have one “s” in my name, Alissa has two … Sorry for the confusion.
I think Alissa’s got it: “Creation Law” is just “Natural Law” purged of its latent deism and coated in a chocolaty Christian shell.
I agree with David’s basic premise — that certain policies or systems work because they account for truths about human nature — but I disagree on two points.
First, he seems to wiggle out from under the moral law while claiming not to. If some action, say an economic transaction, is wrong because it is motivated by greed, the fact that mutual greed works does not excuse it. If some economic system rewards avarice, it is an immoral system (to the extent that systems have a morality — and I’m not sure how far that extent goes). So while a desire to get the best product at the lowest price may not be sinful, God does specifically condemn the urge to manipulate someone else into parting with something for less than its fair value. (Proverbs, I think? About a buyer talking down the product then smirking about what a steal he got.)
Second, David makes the entirely unwarranted assumption that the political right’s systems are more in accord with natural law than the political left’s. The economic system the right protects these days is not free market capitalism à la Adam Smith. It is government sponsored corporatism. (And Adam Smith was no fan of corporations). I would say our current economic hardships (after 6 years of complete Republican control, I would point out) attest that it does not work, and I’ll just flatly say it’s immoral and leave it at that (wouldn’t want to run on too long).
The Catholic theologian philosopher Michael Novak addressed the morality of capitalism as did Marvin Olasky.
To prosper at capitalism you must satisfy your client/customer/neighbor. If you deliver anything less than satisfaction you will be out-competed and eventually suffer loss.
Isnt it great that for me to prosper as baker, butcher, computer programmer I have to satisfy your needs/expectations?
Sawgunner: I think that works in many cases (for instance, restaurants!), but if you chat with most people about the service at, say, their bank or their mobile phone company, it sure doesn’t seem that way. I end up feeling like I’m choosing from the least of many evils.
I sometimes wonder if the globalization of industry makes capitalism a little less successful and consumer-driven than it did when we we dealt mostly in community-based companies.
That isn’t to say there’s a better system, but capitalism doesn’t always equal the best service/good.
Sawgunner:
I haven’t read Novak’s or Olasky’s defense, but I question the assertion that capitalism is good because it requires me to put my neighbor first. You could defend communism with the same vague platitude. Perhaps capitalism would ideally work that way (just as communism would ideally work as the first century church practiced it — every member working for the good of the body), but in practice it just doesn’t.
Well said, though I’d replace “little” with “whole heckuva lot” and suggest that what we call capitalism today bears little resemblance to what Adam Smith had in mind. But I know it’s far too easy to be a bitterly elegiac purist, so I’m willing to admit the system may have been flawed this way from the beginning.
As for a better system, I remember reading that G. K. Chesterton came up with something he called distributism, in which property was distributed among many people and there were some controls in place to prevent its being consolidated. Other than that I know very little about it, and honestly if it weren’t G. K. Chesterton I’d probably be far less interested.
Alissa and JJF,
Find me the company out there which succeeded by ignoring the needs/wants/desires of its customer base? It is those who can best and most consistently satisfy the paying customer who emerge with the most votes. In capitalism the dollars you take out of your wallet and give to me for your laptop, your roofing job, etc.
You could argue that no one is a knowledgable consumer of many medical or dental services; but with those the tort law system and state reg boards tend to eliminate the “underperformers”
Sawgunner:
One word: Verizon.
They maybe started well, but somewhere along the way they got horribly lost. As anyone who’s spent time on the phone with their tech support will attest.
#28: than with the love-your-neighbor and walk-humbly-with-your-God Christian understanding that is our ever dwindling social heritage
This has always been rare among the Christians in this coutry. In the last eight years, incredibly rare.
If you are looking for it on television, whether on the news or on the sitcoms and dramas, you are not likely to find it. But that is either unreality, or it is reality seen selectively and at a distance. I can tell you it is quite common at every church at which I have been a member and it is quite common at The King’s College in New York City. I wish you could know the people it is my sweet privilege to know, and the risen Savior who has made them what they are and who is still not finished with them. I wish you better days ahead, Mr Dean.