I have not blogged for a while; it seems to have taken politics to entice me out of my stupor. This is a sad commentary on the kind of hold politics has on us, but a sadder thing is the inability of Christians to understand the implications of the Kingdom of God.
Dr. Labberton, the president of Fuller Seminary, gave a talk on April 16, 2018 to “a private meeting of evangelical leaders held at Wheaton College….” The name of this talk is Political Dealing: The Crisis of Evangelicalism. A transcript of this talk can be found at Fuller Seminary’s Web Site. The talk attempts to critique the way evangelicals have been involved in the current contentious political landscape.
Let me lay my cards on the table. I have encountered these kinds of statements many times in my almost half-century as a Christian. I usually find them shallow and emotive and this is no exception. The ills of society have been brought about by a preoccupation with money and power, but Christians cannot deal with these ills by “squabbling over the scraps that fall from Caesar’s table,” as one person has put it. Rather such squabbles intensify the divisions that obscure the good news of Christ.
Dr. Labberton begins by alluding to this good news (gospel) of Jesus Christ. I am not sure what he meant by saying that “God’s love and mercy poured out for the sake of the world is deeper, wider, stronger, and wiser than any possible threat or danger, competition or distraction.” The very problem he is addressing — evangelicalism and politics — illustrates the way the things of this world can compete with and distract Christians from the good message of salvation in Christ. While this does not affect the message itself, it affects the way the message is presented and — unfortunately — the way it will be heard.
Dr. Labberton notes somthing that I have often experienced: preoccupation with politics divides Christians. He says, “Christians in both parties found the others’ candidate patently unacceptable, leading to fierce division.” Taking this observation seriously would lead one to wonder whether the problem lies not in the candidates but the political activity itself. Have not politicized Christians always divided? He speaks of Christians being Democrats or Republicans. Perhaps that is the problem? Can we say that while divisions over those who are “of Paul” or “of Apollos” may be wrong (1 Corinthians 4), dividing over whether we are a Democrat or a Republican is somehow better? Dr. Labberton notes that “Many felt cornered without a genuine choice….” Maybe this indicates that the choice is not one we should be trying to make?
Dr. Labberton invokes “the Spirit ‘who is in the world to convict us of sin and righteousness and judgment’ (John 16:8).” This is an interesting mistranslation of that particular verse. It seems to be motivated by a desire to have the Spirit convict Christians of sin and righteousness and judgment.
But the passage is rightly translated as saying that the Spirit will “convict the world” (ελεγξει τον κοσμον) regarding these things. Jesus pretty clearly seems to be distinguishing between the disciples and “they” who do not believe (v. 9). Jesus speaks of “the ruler of this world” being judged (v. 11).
The moral of the story here seems to be that Christians are set apart from the world. The Spirit, present in God’s people, will convict the world of sin by his presence in those who believe (by contrast with those who do believe); of righteousness because Jesus is gone, rejected by the world; and of judgment because Satan is judged by the cross and resurrection.
Dr. Labberton discusses the problem he is addressing by enumerating four negatives and four positives. The four negatives are:
- “This is not a crisis imposed from outside the household of faith, but from within.”
- “This is not a crisis taking place at the level of language.”
- “This is not a crisis unfolding at the level of group allegiance, denomination, or affiliation.”
- “This is not a recent crisis but a historic one.”
It seems pretty clear by examining the way Dr. Labberton describes these four negatives that he has done what most conservative thinkers do — he has simply adopted the liberal, even radical thought patterns of twenty years ago. When he talks about the problems of racism and misogyny, and accuses evangelicals of being white conservatives, he simply makes standard liberal critiques. He argues that we are all under the gun by denying that the problem is one related to denomination or affiliation.
The fourth negative point seems to be the most meaty. He argues that evangelicalism has often been destructively complicit in identifying with “dominant cultural and racial power.” He says that “evangelicalism has been long-wedded to a devastating social self-interest that defends the dominant culture over and against that of the gospel’s command to love the ‘other’ as ourselves.”
This sounds “prophetic” but I fail to understand why living according to traditional patterns — many of them found in the Bible — should be destructive. Admittedly we as Christians could be better disciples. We could be more preoccupied with the Word of God, more focused on the one thing that matters. Dr. Labberton is not calling for that here.
In fact, it is the willingness of leaders of all kinds — including evangelical leaders — to follow the leading of the world that has caused most of our problems. The problem of “racism,” for example, has been exacerbated and prolonged by those whose living is based on exploiting it. Multi-generational poverty is caused, not by racism, but by government policy that makes people dependent and destroys the institution of the family, which the Bible puts forth as the earthly foundation for human identity and dignity.
The adoption of feminism as the reigning orthodoxy regarding sexual relations has produced generations of unhappy families and — especially and ironically — unhappy women who find themselves trying to “have it all” and end up losing it all. There is a steady stream of women writing about how they never realized that postponing raising a family for the sake of career would leave them childless and lonely. The looming “marriage strike,” brought about by the incredibly lop-sided legal system surrounding ironically named “no-fault” divorce (it’s always the man’s fault in no-fault divorce), bodes ill for the future.
The sexual revolution has also betrayed generations of women by fomenting the notion that “equality” means eliminating the double standard where men are admired for sexual “conquests” while women are denigrated by premarital sex. The notion that men and women are both denigrated by fornication is, perhaps, an alternative form that equality might have taken, but for some reason that is seen as judgmental.
The effect of this has been to deliver women over to sexual predators. Women are now literally mocked for being virgins (as men have been for a long time). The result is that while the “unwanted pregnancy” side of fornication can be prevented or dealt with, the psychological trauma is not so easily handled. Thus the upswing in after-the-fact accusations of sexual assult (the so-called “mattress girl” is a good example of this). The relationship may have been “consensual” but the woman feels abused afterward. And indeed she was, even though she “consented” to the sex. The societal boundaries that would have protected her have been dynamited by the change in sexual morality.
And yes, women need to be protected, though men are also damaged by fornication. (Paul’s admonishment to “flee fornication” (1 Corinthians 6:18) applies to men and women equally.) But that damage is spritual in both men and women, and being invisible is not taken account of by the world. This indeed is something that we as Christians should and must speak to.
Ironically evangelicals have bought into the feminist view of marital relationships. There is a notion that women are to guide men into a higher relational spirituality (women are “relational experts”).
To give just one example: a well-known evangelical leader, Albert Mohler, some time ago argued that “a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.” He even alludes to 1 Corinthians 7 to support this! Apparently 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 is not in his Bible?
The notion that women should submit to their husbands — a teaching clearly given in multiple places in the Bible — is ignored in favor of “mutual submission” and “servant leadership.” There is not room here to discuss the biblical issue in its fullness; suffice it to say that Peter’s notion that women should call their husbands “lord” (1 Peter 3:5-6) seems to produce nothing but horror in modern evangelical leaders.
Dr. Labberton enumerates four positives — by which I mean indications of what the problems are, not what they are not. He says,
- “First is the issue of power.”
- “Second is the issue of race.”
- “Third is the issue of nationalism.”
- “Fourth is the issue of economics.”
Here again Dr. Labberton seems simply to adopt the critiques of the Left in a shallow way. He starts in a promising way when he says “… ‘Jesus is Lord’ is a statement about power.” But he then goes on to talk about politics. He says that evangelicals tend to align with “power that seeks dominance, control, supremacy, and victory over compassion and justice….” But what does “compassion and justice” mean in this context? He gives a series of issues: “racial, political, economic…” etc. But these are worldly issues. Christians feel threatened by these issues because their leaders have not shown them how to walk in a hostile world. I argue that Dr. Labberton’s talk is one example of that failure.
Can we simply align evangelicalism with the “cause-du-jour” mentality of the world? Can we accept without examination the premise that we are in the throes of crisis over the issues Dr. Labberton gives? Might it not be more cogent to look deeper — to see the true issue as the idolatry of politics that Jacques Ellul described in his book, The Political Illusion?
Politics is about power. Voting is about power (or rather the illusion of it). And this power is exerted over against our neighbors. This is why people get so caught up in it. We want things our way — politics promises that we will get it. Of course, being the domain of the Prince of this world, it lies. We never get what we vote for.
Dr. Labberton goes on to talk about race. While Paul does talk about a new creation that bridges racial lines, one must ask what relevance can this possibly have to worldly social policy? Does not the imposition of spiritual principles on an un-spiritual body-politic become the law that kills? Like all laws, it is law that those whom Christians attempt to impose it on have not the resources to keep.
The “right answer” to the racial issue is to live out the new creation in the church. This must be done without judgment or condemnation. It must be the outgrowth of a love that pervades our interactions with one another (not some mysterious “other” — Christ’s commandment was to “love one another”). It must be taught and modeled in our leadership, of course, but not in the context of power. This brings up issues of church leadership that go far beyond that of race; suffice it to say that the church as an institution is equipped mostly to give institutional solutions to heart problems.
One hears over and over about white racism from people who benefit by an educational system largely built by whites and paid for by the taxes that white people pay. Trillions of dollars of tax money are spent on social problems, and these problems get worse (I argue that the money makes them worse as I described above). I even recall a Korean professor claiming that Korean racism against blacks is due to white racism. It has gotten to the point of parody: “A racist is any white person who, when a person of color rings a bell, fails to salivate.”
How do we, as leaders, help people come to grips with this issue? First, I believe that we cannot buy uncritically into condemnations of racism. Often this is a matter of “playing the race card” to avoid actual discussion of issues at hand.
But more important, Paul says that “the spiritual person judges all things, but is himself judged by nobody” (1 Corinthians 2:15). Our job is to understand on a deep level how the issues of the world affect those for whom we have responsibility. We are to build bridges, not blame people for not crossing non-existent ones.
Some years ago I was struck by the way Tony Dungy, after his team won the Super Bowl, said that he was more proud of the fact that both the winning and losing coach were Christians than that they were African American. I felt a strong sense of joy over this statement and the way it reflected true oneness in Christ. I also was encouraged by the fact that he placed his spiritual identity in Christ over his racial identity.
Unfortunately this transvaluation of racial identity does not help people gain political power. Only by presenting an ethnic group as a bloc can one gain the clout necessary to have an effect in the political world. Thus the true temptation here is to want political clout — whatever the ethnic group. True spiritual leadership must abjure political power — as Christ did — no matter how good its intentions may seem.
Thus the deeper issue is the desire for power to influence society. Christians are frequently urged to take political action over one cause or another. In one church where I was the pastor, a petition was circulated to urge congress to sell F-15 fighters to Taiwan. This is an extreme case, but there are many causes — both “liberal” and “conservative” that Christians are urged to organize over.
But the Bible tells us that the Kingdom of Jesus “is not of this world,” otherwise his disciples would fight to save him. In similar vein we are told that “our citizenship is in heaven.” Hebrews speaks of the faith that caused people to “desire a better land, that is, a heavenly one,” for which reason “God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.” (Note that the word “politics” stems from the Greek word for “city.”)
This moves naturally into the next issue that Dr. Labberton talks about: nationalism. Clearly he is outraged by the election and policies of President Trump. He says, “The current administration’s rhetoric may be odious, pejorative, and totalizing against our international neighbors….” He then goes on to discuss immigration policy and blames “white evangelicals” for being “nationalistic and demeaning to others.”
It is difficult to know what to make of this. The fact that people will risk their lives to enter this country and to flee their own birthplaces and families indicates that there is some kind of gradient of quality of life. The US is better, otherwise there would be an outflow instead of an influx. But what does this have to do with Christianity?
Are we as Christians responsible for the mendacity and hypocrisy of immigration policy? People resonate with Trump because they feel they have lost control—decisions are imposed on them undemocratically. California, for example, voted overwhelmingly to require public institutions to obey immigration law. A judge overturned this initiative and the state refused to defend it.
The DACA program was an executive order that Obama issued after congress repeatedly refused to pass a law to do the same thing. Regardless of one’s view of the good or evil of DACA, was it not imposed undemocratically?
It is somewhat disingenuous of Labberton to blame Christians for immigration issues when immigration policy has been imposed undemocratically on the body politic. Is this not an obstacle to any kind of rapprochement on this issue?
In similar vein, discussion on the issue is suppressed by accusations of “racism”. I remember hearing a radio discussion years ago where the California Superintendent of Schools literally said that a caller’s question about the cost of educating immigrants was “racist” and should not be asked (this Superintendent was, fortunately, defeated in the next election). But this tactic of avoiding open discussion of issues by labeling one side as evil does not make these questions go away. It just drives them into the darkness where they fester. The election of Trump was one result of long suppression of open discussion.
Finally, Dr. Labberton touches on the issue of economics. He speaks about God’s “heart for the poor and vulnerable” and refers to the economic organization of Israel. He speaks of “justice for the poor,” which was indeed an important theme, but “justice” meant something more like “equal standing before the law” than what we refer to as “social justice.” Leviticus 19:15 says, “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” Note well: “YOU SHALL NOT BE PARTIAL TO THE POOR”. Admittedly this is unlikely in this age of “pay to play” in the legal system. Nevertheless the principle is there. You cannot gain a sense of self-righteousness by UNJUSTLY preferring the poor over the rich, any more than you should feel good when the rich gain legal advantages that would not be available to the poor.
Now clearly concern for the poor is a theme in the Old Testament. However, Dr. Labberton seems not to realize that all the economic policies in the Old Testament are directed toward solidarity with God’s people. Laws like Jubilee affirmed, not that the land belonged to all, but that it belonged to God, and his intention was that everyone should possess an inheritance. This does not mean that everyone would be equal. Talent and effort would still be rewarded. But it would minimize the permanence of those inequities. But note that the principle of property ownership was so important that God made it impossible to permanently alienate what you owned.
And what was God’s chosen way to create a “safety net” for the poor? First, he allowed gleaning and told farmers not to harvest too thoroughly. A poor person could assuage his hunger by walking through fields and plucking grain to eat—though he could NOT take a basket. And if he was in extremity he could sell himself as a slave. This was a humane institution because it was subject to the laws of jubilee—after seven years you would go free, and masters were told to not send slaves away empty-handed. A slave could, however, bind himself permanently to his master if he loved his master and household and was well-off (see Deuteronomy 15:17).
The above is but a partial summary of the Old Testament teaching on economics. The more important issue for us as New Testament Christians is “How do we see these Old Testament principles in the light of Christ?”
Again the fundamental principle that is emphasized is that of solidarity with God’s people. In John 13:34 Jesus says, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” In other words, Christians are responsible for one another. This is shown in many places, such as 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, 1 John 3:16-18, James 2:1-7 etc.
At the same time we also are told to accept responsibility for ourselves and our own. 1 Thessalonians 4:9-12 speaks as follows:
Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, for that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.
It is hard to see how making “statements,” getting involved in movements and causes, and joining protests and demonstrations is in accord with this.
Similarly we read in 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12:
For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.
For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.
1 Timothy 5:8 continues this theme when it says
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Paul then goes on to discuss how the Church should take care of widows—and he spells out the qualifications for a widow that the Church would support in 1 Timothy 5:9-10:
Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.
What does all this have to do with government social policy? Dr. Labberton accuses “white evangelicals” for passing “laws and tax changes that create more national indebtedness and elevate the top 1% even higher — while cutting services and provisions for children, the disabled, and the poor that are castigated as disgusting “entitlements” — one has to ask how this is reconciled with being followers of Jesus.” Here Dr. Labberton simply adopts the premises of liberal social polity. Allowing people to keep the fruits of their labor is “selfish”, “mean-spirited” and “lacking in compassion”, while voting for increased spending is “compassionate” — even though it is someone else’s money that is being spent (that is, if the money is not borrowed, thereby imposing the burden on future generations who have no say in it).
(Dr. Labberton also neglects the positive benefits of Trump’s “tax cuts” and — less well known — regulatory reform, such as record levels of employment among minorities.)
However, as far as I can see, Christians have no dog in this hunt. Our kingdom is not of this world. We take care of our own in accordance with the above passages.
When Jesus was asked by someone to make his brother divide the inheritance with him, Jesus answered, “Who made me a judge over you?” That is, if you do not accept the authority of Jesus, why do you ask him to judge disputes? In the same way, the world does not accept the authority of Jesus nor the church. Why, then, should we try to give solutions to the world’s problems? Would these not simply be laws that kill if, as I said above, the world has not the spiritual resources to live by these solutions?
Jesus cautioned to beware of covetousness. But this cuts both ways. Is not the envy of the rich a form of covetousness? When Jesus, in Luke 12:15, says “Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions,” does this not apply to the poor as well as the rich? Yes, the poor are worse off, but if they are true disciples they will be under the care of God who promises that they will be taken care of (see Matthew 6:32-33). But Paul speaks of those who seek to be rich in 1 Timothy 6:6-10:
But godliness with contentment is great gain, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content.
But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
Do we believe the scriptures? Or do we worship Caesar as God, asking him to provide all things? Do we accept worldly economics or do we trust God to make us abound so that we can be generous? 2 Corinthians 9 outlines this idea—and Paul there was writing about a collection taken to relieve the Christians in Judea who were undergoing a famine.
Christians who take care of one another and who share lives and means will be a light to the world, a world of zero-sum games and dog-eat-dog competition. All this does indeed transcend any worldly economic system. Much more can be said in this direction but the above is enough, I believe, to address Dr. Labberton’s points.
Finally, Dr. Labberton has a section on repentance. He says, “Though I would like to think all this has little to do with me or with my evangelical point of view, I know I am among the guilty. The condemnation of a gospel life poorly lived sticks to me closer than I can see or know.”
This kind of statement makes no sense to me. It is a generic repentance of sins which he cannot even “see or know.” In my view, it is pure virtue signaling. “Even though I can’t name my sins, I repent of them, and you should too.”
But I believe he is committing the sin of “repenting of the sins of others.” He cannot name the sins of which he repents, but he is sure he is “among the guilty,” of which you, the reader, are also members.
If Dr. Labberton is really repentant, I would like to see that of which he repents, and what he proposes to do himself. Rather than laity bashing and making generic statements of guilt, I would welcome attention to whatever pieces of wood he finds in his own eye.
Dr. Labberton also says “all the right things” about Fuller seminary. It is “white-cultured;” too “Western-oriented;” “falls short in empowering [the] voices [of women].” I take it that he believes these are scriptural concerns. Yet I have to wonder. Is not the very example he gives of Jesus taking eleven (later twelve) men and empowering them to preach the gospel and make disciples a model we ought to follow? What does the Great Commission have to do with dotting all the politically correct ‘i’s and crossing all the culturally diverse ‘t’s? Aren’t we supposed to teach disciples to obey what Jesus commands, rather than lying supine at the feet of the world?