Words'nTone

Back in 2006 US News & World Report had a blurb (in ‘Washington Whispers’) that the republicans, according to Ed Gillespie, the former GOP Party chair, expect to increase their minority and in particular its black vote. Gillespie indicated that they will see double or triple their usual share by courting “black veterans, entrepreneurs, and churchgoers.” This doesn’t come as a surprise to me. First off—both parties target groups and then figure out ways to draw them or keep them into the political fold. But, in this particular article, it was his comment that followed that struck my interest: “We will not get the votes of the … upper-middle-class African-American voters in the suburbs … until we demonstrate our commitment to poor African-Americans in the inner cities.” First thing that came to mind was: I wish I could help the GOP see how this can happen and what measures of support would both increase such commitment and actual—really help—to have good, positive, and sustaining outcomes for the urban vulnerable so that the commitment would not just be a show. And then I thought, isn’t this also so true as a basic principle for the church? Not that I am speaking—or thinking—here of just wanting to increase adherents among Africa-Americans (which would in and of itself be a good thing), but in general. We (evangelicals) want people do believe our message of the Gospel and we will not see an increase in that among the population until we demonstrate our commitment to the poor and vulnerable in the inner cities (and of course elsewhere). My studies in the book of Mark and in particular my recent one on Idolatry and Poverty and my essay on the Mark 12 “Widow vs. Scribes” passage has revealed more clearly that there is an eschewing of the evangelical voice in public affairs on issues of poverty. This has made me more acutely aware that it is our deeds and attitudes concerning the less fortunate and vulnerable that are a weak-link in our apologetic and public voice. My papers haven’t necessarily been about institutional advocacy, it is actually a developing thesis that such commitment to the vulnerable needs to be our evangelism, congregation-by-congregation—actual church people believing and acting in roles of doers and advocates for the poor who will, as Jesus said, will always be among us.

2009 Christmas was Christmas present-lite, for obvious reasons.  But we were going to my dad’s in South Carolina for our first Christmas in over 50 years.  We wanted to bring something for household.  I decided for my brother the “End of the Spear” DVD.  The DVD is a movie about the real event of the missionary-martyrs we often hear about in sermon illustrations at church.  The Director of the “End of the Spear” tells us that the Waodani tribe of the eastern rainforest of Ecuador, at first, did not want to allow them to be portrayed on film, especially the events of January 1956.  As the shot at Concord was heard around the world (April 19, 1775,), there was a true sense that the spears piercing into the five missionaries on that river sand bar in the jungles of Equator, too, were heard around the world.  Many Christians know the story as repeated in sermons, Sunday school, college chapels, and missionary stories: Missionaries Nate Saint, Jim Elliot, Ed McCully, Pete Fleming, and Roget Youderian met the end of the spear in a deceitful twist of what was to be a fruitful missionary journey to bring the Good News to one of the most violent tribes of South America in 1956.  When the Waodani tribe, now many years later, and many who follow “God’s carvings” as the Waodani call the Bible, said no at the invitation to retell their story on film, Steve Saint began to explain to them about the violence in America.  He explained the incident at Columbine where, for no real reason, students had murdered their fellow classmates.  After hearing some of America’s violent stories, Mincayani, the actual one who had killed Steve’s father in 1956, noted that the stories of violence in American was just like how the Waodani had lived before following “God’s carvings.” The tribe then agreed: if their story could help us in the U.S. stop killing and live in peace, they saw telling their story through film as a good thing.  The truthfulness of the Gospel is an objective fact of history; its power can even be applied to the wildest, most violent, hate filled tribe in the deepest parts of the jungle.  Perhaps, it can be applied here, in the US, in our own schools, neighborhoods, and communities.

“There was a time when the church was very powerful—in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the morés of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.

“Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent—and often even vocal—sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.” ~Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter From a Birmingham Jail” (1963)

My daughter never ceases to amaze me.  In a recent homework assignment she analysis two pieces of literature from two government antagonists and advocates for civil disobedience—Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr.  Both these men, according to my daughter, Amanda, challenged “the ‘rightness’ of government laws and its justice system through civil disobedience.” These two essays reflected these sentiments: Thoreau in his essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” (1849) and King in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (1963).  She utilizes these essays and how each of these recognizable civil antagonists provoked others to be persuaded by their point of view.  She summarizes the essence of these men’s conflict with Governing laws and the laws of personal morality:

“Humanity is ruled by a large range of moral law, which dictates the difference between right and wrong.  However, society is ruled by a government that dictates what is considered right and wrong according to laws.  These laws set the standards by which a society functions and the penalties for breaking the laws.  When the law of society clashes with the moral individuality of humanity, it is only fair that one should be able to ask if the government’s laws are sound and morally correct.”

My Amanda contends that Luther, rather than Thoreau, has a better persuasive essay, for in the end both use appeals to justice, both from two very different angles.  Thoreau because of how what he considered unjust laws affected him—he pushed his argument from an individualistic point of reference; whereas Luther, on the other hand concentrated on what is just for all people, especially those marginalized in places of concentrated poverty.  I, too, read Thoreau, not in high school, but in college and I told Amanda I always felt he was a whiner.  He complained about what he didn’t like personally.  He would no more want you or his neighbor to exercise their personal morality if it somehow placed him in conflict with his own.

I never read King until I was a Christian, out of college and grad-school and working in a Community Action Agency.  King on the other hand, despite any personal failings, didn’t complain for himself, but identified what ought to be just for all.  My daughter’s brief essay contrasting these two firebrands draws out King’s poignant comment to the Church:

“King’s essay is exceedingly more personal than Thoreau’s.  Within this letter there is also a hint of logical appeal, for example when his is talking to the church and how disappointed he is with their role in segregation, King ‘logically’ states that if the church does not ‘recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed and an irrelevant social club…’ (King).  This logical appeal attempts to get the church to think about the consequences of their actions and inaction, drawing the point that it may be their downfall to not aid in the termination of segregation.”

I was amazed at both the reference in the Letter and that my daughter would draw out her own attention to the Church’s culpability in following unjust laws (and allow and not confront structural sin that leave many poor and marginalized around us).  She ends her own argument that King was more persuasive than the selfish, bellyaching, whining Thoreau:

“In comparing King’s letter to Thoreau’s essay—both on civil disobedience— it appears that King’s letter is more effective in its use of emotional appeals and ability to draw in the audience with a convincing tone and persuasive argument.  King is fighting for something he believes to be right and the reader can feel his passion simmer throughout the letter.  King also is more effective in the way he establishes his authority.  In the letter he gives a brief introduction of who he is and his purpose for being in Alabama.  Thoreau, while demonstrating a well thought through and logical argument, still fails to truly captivate the reader.  At the closing of his essay it appears as though he is just bitter for being placed in jail.  Thoreau was not prepared for the consequences of his actions.  King, on the other hand, was convinced that suffering the consequences of his actions was part of his argument.”

Perhaps one reason the Church fails to captivate the public is that we argue like Thoreau—we’re only complaining about what affects us, selfish, moralizing whiners who just don’t want what is unjust toward us.  We ought to reflect more King’s argument and stop being “an irrelevant social club,” and realize that whatever suffering as Christians we are to endure on behalf of others is part of our apologetic, part of our argument for Christianity and that Christ is alive and the true King over all things in heaven and on earth.

The following are a number of quotes from my recent paper, “Idolatry and Poverty: Where the Private vs. Public Isn’t Enough.” Section II of the paper, which is a review of Marken texts and his use of the idolatry-poverty OT juxtaposition, I will post in the next thread.  Although a repeat of drafts posted earlier, the final version is worth re-reading (I think, anyway).  For now, various quotes from the other sections of the paper are posted here:

• Issues of poverty are almost automatically, by default, arranged in private vs. public dichotomies, arguments, and responsibilities, which sets up a defective social construction of reality for the Christian.



• Then, the banal posture of many non-poor Christians to the poor can lead to the “bystander effect,” leaving many Christians out of any active role in addressing the causes of poverty or assisting those affected by poverty.



• It seems we do have a programmatic approach for discussing poverty that actually focuses application down to, not what the government or charitable individuals think or do, but how the Christian and the Christian community define themselves and how they are associated with the poor.



• There is a fascinating range of Old Testament contexts that Mark draws upon throughout his narrative that refer and allude to contexts that juxtapose both idolatry and the economically vulnerable.



• The Gospel is associated programmatically with the issue of idolatry and to those affected by poverty, which ought to, then, (re)form our understanding of Christian discipleship and evangelism.



• What is of particular interest is that the defense of the poor was “seen as a virtue of gods, kings, and judges,” essentially a policy of virtue that proved the piety and character of a ruler, monarch, or god.



• In light of antecedent ANE concerns for the poor, the uniqueness for the Israelite is that everything narrows down to one God who is alone righteous, who brings about justice for the poor.



• Peoples of the ANE all had social regulations that were part of royal legislation and subject to the state’s administration of justice.  Thus, enter the biblical concentration on land-management stipulations related to the economically vulnerable.  This is where the significance resides: The protection and advocacy for the poor were polemical, an apologetic for God against the false gods and their image-bearers.



• The prohibition against images and idols has a slight twist to it, namely there is a religious logic at play: It was understood that a pagan deity was present in its image and the human monarchs or sovereigns were considered to be image-bearers of their deity.



• This is particularly important in regards to the ethical stipulations where God demonstrates His righteous virtues in protecting and caring for the poor: As the work of God’s hands, Israel—His image-bearer—was to reflect His righteousness.  And, as the present Spirit-image-bearers, so now believers and the Church are to reflect such righteousness.



• The people’s relationship to the land was to reflect the virtues of God in contrast to surrounding deities and their image-bearers.  There was an apologetic to be demonstrated through the people’s relationship to the land.



• Fulfilling land-management stipulations regarding the economically vulnerable and the poor is set within a God vs. the gods polemic, actually raising justice for the poor to the level of apologetics and evangelism.  As the one true God, if He does not demonstrate care, provide for, and protect the economically vulnerable, then He is no God at all—at most, just one god among other gods.  Furthermore, when the people who are to reflect His image do not provide a profile and outcomes reflecting such concern and advocacy, not only does this diminish His glory, but also negates the witness and proclamation of His name among outsiders.



• With the inauguration of the Kingdom and the Church and believers as His image-bearers, there remains the same apologetic concerning God’s righteous acts on behalf of the poor, and thus demand relevant evangelistic outcomes related to the protection, care, and advocacy for the economically vulnerable.



• L. T. Johnson reminds us that “Idolatry comes naturally to us, not only because of the societal symbols and structures we ingest from them, but also because it is the easiest way for our freedom to dispose itself.”



• It is not necessarily how Old Testament ethical texts apply to our modern social-location (although important), but how the apologetic nature of the idolatry-poverty juxtaposition relates to those who are to be formed by the Gospel, then, how that significance dissuades Christians from conforming to any private vs. public dichotomous response to poverty.



• Although much of the Old Testament ethical content is similar to surrounding ANE religions, this is one of the most striking contrasts to Israel’s neighbors, namely the religion of Israel prohibited idolatry and, very importantly, in how idolatry formed social relationships.



• It is the body of knowledge that accompanies the object and service of worship and, then, the social and cultural habits that follow, developing an everyday world with meaning and definitions for relationships (repeated action, mundane habits) that objectifies reality and maintains plausibility, significance, and security (its symbols and corresponding institutions).



• As far as biblical revelation is concerned, “Idolatry [is] the Big Lie about reality” (Johnson).



• Applying the significance of a Gospel embedded with texts regarding idolatry and, as well, texts indicating relationships and social action toward the economically vulnerable, it is important to understand how the social-location experienced by many non-poor Christians was formed and its implications for their participation in the outcomes of this social-location.



• Over time new symbols and signs (lawns, yards, gated communities, commutes and highways, social status, shopping malls, upward mobility, the market, double-entry accounting, etc.) that permeate the social-location the modern non-poor Christian experiences as everyday life compete with religious or biblical symbols (e.g., the words of God, the redemptive-historical acts of God in history).



• After decades of political alignment and religious justification, for the most part, the non-poor Christian living in the suburbs now feel at home.



• Without a sociological imagination, many non-poor Christians are not fully aware of their own socially constructed exurban reality, nor how it has been formed, which can lead to duplicitous, self-righteous double standards toward the poor.



• Often arguments rest, not on biblical grounds, but realities constructed by everyday life outside concentrated areas of poverty, namely, the ability of the non-poor who have taken the “opportunities” presented in our socio-economic system to develop wealth and prosperity.  The poor in the cities only need to do the same.  Equal opportunity, not equal distribution of wealth is justice. But this is not a fair picture, for the so-called “opportunity” has had a history and an opportunity that has been largely absent from social-locations with the most concentrated poverty, a consequence that is more akin to the injustice described by the prophets than simply the results of a good, honest Christian work ethic and the invisible hand of the market.



• The invisible hand had and continues to get help—sometimes through Federal, State, and municipal efforts; sometimes through creative marketing; sometimes through celebrity-trend makers; sometimes by politically empowered zoning codes.



• It is an empirical fact, the system and its mediating institutions ignored its central-cities and promoted life in the burbs as the ultimate goal of prosperity, all for the gods of growth, progress, and the new.



• On the one hand, the non-poor’s social construction of reality which they now experience as everyday life allows them to benefit from past actions of government, not just the market, that laid much of the groundwork for continued prosperity. On the other hand, the concentration of poverty in central-cities is not simply about laziness, slothfulness, or even personal sin.  (I assume the non-poor who benefit from the current structure and mediating institutions are just as much “sinners” as those living in geographic areas of concentrated poverty.)



• The fact of poverty and the reality of those affected by it in the central-cities couldn’t have happened any more affectively if it were actually planned and implemented with malice.



• The present model for socio-economic progress and prosperity objectifies the non-poor Christian’s reality (i.e., “home world”) through habits and experiences of everyday life that are incorporated into his or her belief system—validating the plausibility of personal faith.



• The non-poor accept a world that is duplicitous, limiting the historic and current benefits of a socio-economic system to those the “market blessed.”



• For the Christian and Christian community it is, Show me what kind of association you have with those living with the affects of poverty, and I will tell you what kind of god you worship.

No direct routes, so it took me almost two days of travel just for the back and forth from Bridgeport (CT) to New Orleans. But it was worth it. The Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) 2009 annual meeting was wonderful, especially the fellowship.

Last year (2008) when the Other Voices Study Group of the ETS met to decide on the 2009 topic and possible papers, I voiced a concern that we (meaning evangelicals) had accepted and probably promote labeling that defines us as wealthier, suburban, conservative, capitalistic-market loving and politically republicans. I wasn’t happy or comfortable with such labeling (even though I am quite conservative politically), so I said I’d like to develop a paper on the subject of poverty where the biblical content resists such designating labeling. I had noticed in studying and researching my 2008 paper on Mark 4 and the Sower who sows that the bible juxtaposed the two concepts of idolatry and poverty—in fact almost every time (every time) a biblical author mentions the poor, the economically vulnerable, or the issue of poverty, somewhere in the context (many times immediately) or in the flow of thought there would be a reference to the prohibition against idolatry or the God of the Bible vs. the gods polemic. In fact in my study of Mark itself revealed that almost every time Mark makes a significant point or uses the OT to develop his NT revelation, he draws from these idolatry-poverty juxtaposed OT texts. I though a paper on this subject would be enlightening (at least to me). I thought such a study would help undue labeling and help to disallow the defining evangelicals through the lens of politics.

After the study (as previous posts suggest), my premise for this idolatry-poverty juxtaposition is that the issue of poverty is raised to the level of apologetics, a biblical defense of the living God as revealed in Scripture. Not so much an argument for God’s existence, but a living application by non-poor Christians as an apologetic for the Biblical God as the One true God, through reflecting His profile in how they, non-poor Christians, associate with the poor and in living out the biblical outcomes related to those affected by the issues of poverty. This is another set of reasons why I believe social action can be evangelism.

Furthermore, over the years as a conservative whose occupation is related to the social service world and in particular, Community Action, I have tired over the repeated non-truth that is often posited by non-poor exurbanites: “I did it on my own. Without government help. So should the poor. If they just take advantage of the opportunities to make something of their lives….” This mantra, repeated over and over, was and is bothersome and doesn’t make it more true (even if Rush and Sean Hannity keep saying it again and again). Please don’t read into this or my comments about my paper that the issue of poverty is fully the government’s responsibility. But read that I no-longer will accept that any “rich” or suburban non-poor did it on their own. They didn’t and still don’t. They had and have help along the way and government help to boot. (Read my paper or the previous posts.)

At the close of the session where I presented my paper, I referenced this “I did it on my own attitude” among Christians. (Of all Americans, Christians should never have such an attitude, ever.) I mentioned that there was an old story about the issue of kicking out prayer in schools, where there was a billboard in the South that read, “As long as there are math tests in school, there will always be prayer in schools.” I said I thought of a new billboard where it says, “As long as there are zoning boards, conservatives will never totally believe in the invisible hand of the market.”

In the end I was, through the paper, hoping to create a new, more biblical way of thinking about poverty for non-poor Christians. My hope is in the next few weeks to post the paper as a PDF. For now you can read through the previous posts and threads where the draft and notes have been posted. Just keep flipping back in time, you’ll find them.

It is down to the wire and I am finishing up my paper on the Idolatry-Poverty Juxtaposition and the Gospel. Nov 19th is fast approaching, so I have left some fine tuning and then deciding what parts not to read--I only have 40 minutes and I am supposed to leave some room for Q&A. Here is the conclusion I have decided upon. Some of its a repeat from earlier posts, but better I think. In the next post, I just want to make some personal, concluding remarks.

---

Conclusion: Social Action as Christian Apologetics
Simply—more affluent suburbanites, despite a claim to a higher work ethic or a more developed sense of responsibility, didn’t do it on their own; they had help along the way. On the one hand, the non-poor’s social construction of reality which they now experience as everyday life allows them to benefit from past actions of government, not just the market, that laid much of the groundwork for continued prosperity. On the other hand, the concentration of poverty in central-cities is not simply about laziness, slothfulness, or even personal sin. (I assume the non-poor who benefit from the current structure and mediating institutions are just as much “sinners” as those living in geographic areas of concentrated poverty.) Indeed, much of what is in place and experienced now as normal arose from various forms of racism and redlining practices, as well as “the concentration of subsidized housing projects [that] destabilized and isolated the poor, while federal home-loan programs, targeting new construction exclusively, encouraged the deterioration and abandonment of urban housing.” The fact of poverty and the reality of those affected by it in the central-cities couldn’t have happened any more affectively if it were actually planned and implemented with malice. Without the aid of government policies and subsidies, as well as municipally empowered zoning laws and discriminatory business policies (such as bank red-lining), the foundation for exurban wealth in America might not have happened. Rather than lamenting this inequitable state of affairs, participants, including many non-poor believers, have been encouraged to rejoice in the “prudence” of such strategies and the institutions—not the government (they say) but capitalism and the mythical market—that sustain them. The modern, non-poor suburban dweller is the heir of such socially constructed forces.

The present model for socio-economic progress and prosperity objectifies the non-poor Christian’s reality (i.e., “home world”) through habits and experiences of everyday life that are incorporated into his or her belief system—validating the plausibility of personal faith. The problem for the non-poor Christian living in such a history and current social-location, then, experiences only a partial reality, which is a defective social construction. The Bible warns of God’s judgment upon those who create or maintain economic structures that benefit some and exclude others (e.g., Ex 22-23; Lev 19, 24; Dt 15, 24; Jer 4-8, 16-17; 22; Ez 17-18, 22; Am 4:1ff; Mic 2:1-2; Zech 7; Isa 5:7ff), that pave the way to prosperity for some and prolonged, generational poverty for others. The non-poor accept a world that is duplicitous, limiting the historic and current benefits of a socio-economic system to those the “market blessed.”

In Man in Revolt, Emil Brunner famously remarked, “For every civiliation, for every period of history, it is true to say, ‘show me what kind of gods you have, and I will tell you what kind of humanity you possess.’” For the Christian and Christian community it is “show me what kind of gods do you worship and I will tell you what kind of relationship you have with those in poverty.” The reality of everyday life, the acceptance that Suburban life and its enablers, the free market and human acts of power, are often at odds with the Gospel, especially a Gospel that has been formed by the idolatry-poverty juxtaposition. For the non-poor Christian this is an idolatrous mode of living and does not offer a biblically defensible apologetic for the God revealed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Land and the Earth Belong to God
The paradigmatic use of such Old Testament ethical contexts is also affirmed by that fact that the Land of Gift and the whole earth belong to God.  This is significant for the non-poor Christian, despite current American notions of private property.  First, God’s laws were intended to enlighten the nations (cf. Dt 4:5-8), so the principles, acts, symbols, and mediating structures in such Old Testament ethical contests were to find application in all cultures.  C. Wright assumes that “if God gave Israel certain specific institutions and laws, they were based on principles which have universal validity.  That does not mean that Christians should attempt to impose by law provisions lifted directly from the law of Moses.  It does, however, mean that they ought to work to bring their social-economic location nearer to conformity with the principles underlying the concrete laws of Old Testament paradigm,” because the same God who is the Redeemer and law-giver of Israel is also the Creator and Ruler of contemporary mankind.” Everything rests on the concept that the true owner of the land is Yahweh.  As Israel was to be a light to the nations, “Israel’s socio-economic life and institutions, therefore, have a paradigmatic or exemplary function in principle.”

The Old Testament affirms God’s ownership “as extending over the whole earth and including every living and inanimate thing upon it.” Even property, under Mosaic Law, was not truly individual or private as in we are conditioned to view through American mediating structures (e.g., history, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, local zoning laws, etc.) today; it was related to family and economic sustainability—a key to understanding the role of land and the proper view of ownership.  Ancient laws as those revealed through Moses in the exodus “were paradigmatic, giving models of behaviors and models of prohibitions/punishments relative to those behaviors.” We ought to keep in mind that the land was gift and thus, land holders were formed by the relationship to Yahweh to the land: Yahweh was the actual King over Israel, who owned all the land and made distinctive demands reflecting His righteousness and glory on those to whom he gave it to use.  Under Yahweh each family had their own land, not necessarily individual plots of land, but land associated with tribe, the family.  Israel’s ideal was a form of decentralized family ‘ownership’ as stewardship under Yahweh’s absolute ownership.” This is important for understanding the relationship of those in power (i.e., those at the gate could not impose decisions that centralized power and neglected the reason for the distribution of land, particularly for family economic stability) and how people’s relationship to the land was to reflect the virtues God had presented as comparable to surrounding dieties and tehir image-bearers.  There was even an apologetic nature (i.e., read evangelistic) to be demonstrated through the people’s relationshipt o the land.

Those who affirm the Bible as God’s Word hold differing views on how the Scriptures should be used to provide ethical guidance to the social arena today.  It is important therefore to be clear on the hermeneutical framework used in the paper.  God provided in the Pentateuch institutions to govern this-earthly society of early Israel and the ‘ethical emphases’ of these institutions are intended to inform all peoples and nations (Gn. 18:18, Is. 51:4). The ethical emphases of the pentateuchal provisions find affirmation throughout the Bible (e.g., Lk. 16:19-31), along with the reference to God’s covenantal love (Lev 19:18) as fulfillment of the ‘Law and Prophets’ (Mk. 12:28-31, Rms. 13:9, Gal. 5:14) makes this clear.

Fulfilling the land-management stipulations regarding the economically vulnerable and the poor is a God vs. the gods conflict, actually raising justice for the poor to the level of apologetics and evangelism.  Apologetics is embedded in how God-people, that is disciples of Jesus, treat, protect, provide, and advocate for the economically vulnerable.  As the One true God, if He does not demonstrate care, provide for, and protect the poor and economically vulnerable, then He is no God at all—at just one god among other gods.  Furthermore, when the people who are to reflect His image (collectvely and as individuals) do not provide a profile and outcomes indicating such concern and advocacy, not only does this diminish His glory, but negates the witness and proclamation of His name among outsiders.  It should be no surprise then that the Gospel, that is the present act of God in Christ, is defined by Old Testament contexts where poverty and idolatry are at issue.  As Jesus is the presence of God in the world and His Church and believers are His image-bearer, there remains the same apologetic concerning God’s righteous acts on behalf of the poor, and thus demanding relavent evangelistic outcomes related to protection, care, and advocacy for the economically vulnerable.

Compared to surrounding societies, ANE peoples all had forms of social regulations that were a part of royal legislation and subject to the state’s administration of justice.  Again, thus enter the biblical concentration on land-management and stipulations related to the economically vulnerable and the poor.  This is where the significance resides, for the defense, protection, and advocacy for the poor was a place of comparison, a defense, an apologetic for God and against the false gods and their image-bearers.  Whereas the prohibition against having other gods before Yahweh and against creating images or idols was to maintain a continuous consciousness that there is a distinction between Creator and the finite creation, the prohibition was actualized through maintaining virtues of righteousness, in particular those associated with the protection and care of the poor.

The prohibition against images and idols has a slight twist to it, namely there is a religious logic to the prohibition: it was understood that a pagan deity was present in its image and the human monarchs or sovereigns were considered to be the image-bearer of their deity.  For example, an inscription concerning the temple for the god Amun declared that the god calls king Amenhotep, “My son…My living image.” Other Near Eastern monarchs were considered “sons” of their gods, representing the image of their god through how they ruled.  This is paralleled, first in Genesis where Adam is the image of God (cf. Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6) and inferred as God’s son (cf. Gen 5:7; cf. Lk 3:38) and then in Exodus where Israel is referred to as God’s son (Ex 4:22; cf. Isa 63:16; 64:8; Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1; Rom 9:4).  Israel was to reflect God’s virtues.  This is particularly important in regards to the ethical stipulations where God demonstrates His righteous virtues in protecting and caring for the poor: As the work of God’s hands—His image-bearing idol (Isa 60:21; 61:3, 11; 62:1-2)—Israel was to reflect His righteousness (Isa 60:21; 61:3, 11: 62:1-2; cf. Ias 42:21; 45:23-24; 59:16-17; 63:1).

Throughout the Old Testament there is an emphasis that it is the God of the Exodus, Yahweh who ultimately cares about the poor and is the One God who protects them.

Deuteronomy 10 contains one of the clearest passages that portrays the God of the Old Testament as the Chief Advocate and Defender of the economically vulnerable.  This text also very clearly connects God’s righteous virtue in providing for the poor and its link to idolatry.

”Now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require from you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways and love Him, and to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the LORD’s commandments and His statutes which I am commanding you today for your good?  Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the highest heavens, the earth and all that is in it.  Yet on your fathers did the LORD set His affection to love them, and He chose their descendants after them, even you above all peoples, as it is this day. So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.  For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.  He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing. So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Deut 10:12-19).

Like similar texts indicating that God Himself will defend the poor, some take this passage as “proof” that the State is not to be the institution or mediator on behalf of the poor.  This passage indicates no such thing.  Rather, the command for people to reflect God’s righteousness is indicated in the admonition to “fear the LORD,” walk in his ways, to love Him, and to serve Him with all one’s heart and soul (v 12).  As Israel was encamped on the border of the Promised Land, this was an appeal to renew commitment and fidelity to the land-management stipulations that originated in the Book of the Covenant (Ex 20-23).  As an exodus redemption reminder is placed before them (vv 15-19), the comparison to other God’s seeking similar virtues is referenced: “Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the highest heavens, the earth and all that is in it” (v 14).  Despite claims by other ANE deities and their earthy image-bearing-monarchs, the God of the Exodus is the One true God, who owns all of creation; He is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, who cannot be bribed and shows no partiality (v 17).  And, in order to bring about such impartiality, it is He that brings about justice for the economically vulnerable and loves them by granting them the basic necessities of food and clothing.

November 19th is fast approaching and I continue to work on my paper for the conference in New Orleans.  I have drafted a section that frames a new way of thinking about poverty, at least for the Christian.  Here is a thread on “A New Paradigm for Thinking about Poverty: Idolatry.”

---

In order to provide a vision for a Christian response to the issues of poverty many start with the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7; Luke 12), then proceed to other New Testament teachings (e.g., Acts 4; James).  Although an important element in any Christian approach to poverty, this tends to be directed more at church-life (by which I mean building-centered, locale specific) and Christian attitudes rather that assisting Christians in developing a biblical theological response to those living with the affects of poverty.  Many, on the other hand turn to the Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch and the Prophets, to provide application for the roles and responsibilities of the individual and the State regarding the poor.  And, rightly so, for such biblical material is rich in addressing issues related to the poor and economically vulnerable.  The results however tend toward justifications—right/left, conservative/liberal—for political alignment and socio-economic policies.

Biblical scholars, as well as Christian political and social activists, across the spectrum, nonetheless, continue to wrestle with how the Pentateuch and the prophets apply to the modern/postmodern Christian and to the Christian’s world.  This is particularly important, for much of the debate and discussion regarding the poor, poverty, and the responsibilities of individuals, communities, and governing/ruling entities are found in the laws, codes, and land-stipulations of the Pentateuch and among the prophets.  Many still, however, question the relevance of such documents of antiquity spoken to an ancient nation whose social-political location is the Ancient Near East (ANE) and how the texts apply to the social-location of the contemporary American Church.  Although such dialogue is needed, there is an overlooked framework already existing in how the Gospel writers and Jesus utilize the Old Testament to define and give the Gospel content.  I believe that the Gospel, informed by the Old Testament texts and their contexts that are utilized to define, provide content, and give meaning to the Gospel of the Kingdom, offer an intrinsic framework that is to form Christian discipleship and promotes evangelistic outcomes regarding the issues and causes of poverty.

A way to decipher the significance of Old Testament laws and ethical texts and their contexts is to draw such significance from their incorporation into the Gospel itself.  In this paper, my interest is in the numerous quotes, contexts, and parallels utilized by Mark in his Gospel narrative.  There is a fascinating range of Old Testament contexts that Mark draws upon throughout his narrative that refer and allude to a number of texts and their contexts that reference both idolatry and the economically vulnerable.  These are embedded into his presentation of the Gospel of the Kingdom present in Jesus.  Although Mark’s use of the Old Testament is extensive beyond these particular contexts, he frames the Gospel with appeals to the Old Testament with contexts related to the economically vulnerable in some way, whether Law, land-stipulation, or prophetic announcement, which also contain within their Old Testament context or flow of thought mention of idolatry.

For those clicking or googling into this Words’nTone post, you might want to read part 1 of 2 first.  From part 1 of 2…

POTUS just doesn’t get it.  But perhaps, he and other pro-abortion advocates don’t really care about getting it.  They have their position.  It is a women’s right.  And that’s that.  But…

---

But yet, despite the illusion of civility in calling for mutual interest in “our common ground,” slaves and unborn human beings are still affected in detrimental ways, one dehumanizing and one termination. I cannot imagine POTUS would use the same common-ground tactic on the issue of slavery. (I wonder if he’ll use it on the gay-marriage issue?) Of course there is a time and place for working on common-ground, but used as weasel words, which are both ambiguous and a clear mis-direction, in the debate on the issue of abortion is simply to appeal to the crowd and begs the ultimate question: Is an abortion a deliberate act in terminating the life of an unborn human being?

The argument—actually simply a persuasive speech—moves the listeners to follow this logic:

   We have differences of opinion on whether
         the unborn is a human being.

   But we have common ground on the issue.

   Therefore, we should work together on
         that common ground.

This argument is wrong on so many levels. The insertion of “common ground” into the argument is a non-sequitur, which is a fallacy of irrelevance or unrelated terms. The two ideas—the killing an unborn human being and the plea for common ground--are not linked together; they are unrelated terms. In other words, the appeal for working together on our common ground does not follow the argument, and thus, leaves the audience (if they were thinking—and they should have been as teachers and soon to be graduates of Notre Dame) still begging the ultimate question: Is abortion the taking of a human life?

Really, that is what is at issue. Is abortion murder of an innocent human being? It is the epitome of audacity to think that an appeal to working on “common ground” suffices those who believe (in their hearts, through their faith, and in real hard data) that the unborn is a human being. There is, for this argument and with this issue, no common ground to work on if that be the case.

---

For the first part of this Habit of the Mind...1 of 2

It did not matter to me whether pro-choice advocate and POTUS spoke at Notre Dame.  I would have jumped at the chance to speak to an institution that opposes my position on one of the key dividing issues of the day—abortion.  If NOW asked me to speak at one of their gatherings, of course I’d speak on the issue of abortion and whether we’re killing an innocent human being inside the womb of a pregnant woman.  If one of the many gay-rights groups asked me to speak at a convention or conference, of course I would talk about the issue of gay marriage.  President Obama speaking at Notre Dame’s 2009 commencement—not an issue for me.  That’s the decision for the College President, its Board of Trustees, its contributing alumni and supporters, and future applicants to decide.

What I take issue with is his words—his doublespeak, weasel words, puffery to make his appeal for civility on the issue of abortion between two-opposing philosophies: Pro-abortion and Pro-life.  It is his audacity for common ground and its place in the public debate on the issue of taking the life of someone who is clearly a human being in the womb of a pregnant woman.  With the President’s call for concentrating on the so-called “common ground” which both sides have, Obama utilizes in one swift oracle of neutrality what appears to be a more civil and more appealing approach to the issue that divides many of us personally and politically a debate tactic that is pure puffery, a set of weasel words that distract from the issue at hand, but yet look appealing to the audience.  It is the President’s audacity of common ground that begs the question regarding the issue of abortion.

Can you imagine?  We have sharp differences of opinion.  You believe blacks are human and slavery is an evil.  I believe they are less than human or at least do not have the same rights as European Whites and provide a service that supports our economic well-being as a nation.  Imagine I have been asked to speak at Oberlin College, in the 1800’s a college committed to ending slavery.  My position on slavery is well known, but I have been asked to speak nonetheless, because we have other issues in common and I am someone of public prestige.  Now imagine in my address I said, “We have stark differences of opinion on the issue of slavery, but we should be more civil in our public debate.  We both want people to be treated more nicely and have better living conditions.  We want to see less slavery.  So let’s work on the common ground that we both hold—we can work toward slave-owners treating their slaves more nicely and providing better living conditions.  We can work toward less shipping of slaves from foreign countries.  But let us not let our words divide us.  Let’s work together for our common goals.”

Nice words.  Pleasant approach.  Seemingly civil.  But yet, it still leaves the issue of the nature of slavery untouched, not debated, and unresolved.  And, oh yea…human beings are still being treated as less than human beings and human beings are still being enslaved.  To argue “common ground” is no argument at all.  It leaves what is opposed in place.  Such a tactic allows those who are pro-slavery—really, we are talking about abortion here—to not muster up the argument and thought for sustaining such a practice.  It allows the position to go unchallenged.  Slavery stays in place.  The policy that allows some human beings to be treated as less than human goes unchecked and remains the law of the land.  In this case, the common ground rhetoric allows the President to sidestep the argument and sound honorable at the same time.  But babies are still allowed to be killed for the convenience of adults.  That’s the problem with President Obama’s 2009 Notre Dame Commencement speech—his audacity of common ground.

POTUS just doesn’t get it.  But perhaps, he and other pro-abortion advocates don’t really care about getting it.  They have their position.  It is a women’s right.  And that’s that.  But...see 2 of 2...

A while back I presented a message called, What if God has not spoken? Not only does it have some choice quotes from well worth while writers...I make some good points well myself on the subject of God’s existence and the reliability of the Bible. Originally I prepared and delivered this message as a three part series for a church in Calgary, AB, later at Prairie Bible College chapel message, and most recently at a church in Fairfield, CT. Seems timeless to me and worth presenting over again. Please feel free to download and pass around if it is a helpful piece.

Listen to What if God has not spoken?

PS I am open to presenting the series or this message elselwhere...just let me know ().

“We’ll repaint Christianity in a light that will make it appeal to postmoderns” (Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be), p. 61).

“’Post-evangelicals are less inclined to look for truth in propositional statements and old moral certitudes and more likely to seek it in symbols, ambiguities, and situational judgments’” (p. 73 quoting, Dave Tomlinson, The Post-Evangelical, p. 94).

“The whole movement seems to be built on reductionistic, even modernistic, either-or categories” (p. 75).

Have you ever noticed that those who do not believe truth is available as a category use propositional statements to argue their view? How silly. You can’t use propositional truth to clobber propositional truth. I understand my atheist friends arguing for allusive truth. I can even understand my skeptical friends believing “what’s truth for you might not be truth for me.” But for those who are supposed to take God and His Word seriously, I have the hardest time fathoming this turn away from revealed truth and the devaluing of the Bible itself. Understandable from unbelievers and strains of liberal theologically oriented; but those claiming some direct correspondence to the Church found in the Bible, this is very hard to accept for me. First, I don’t believe they grasp the danger in their own fallacy of diminished certainty. Second, isn’t it really idolatry to fashion a “faith” out of the contemporary, cultural influences? And third, ultimately the Christianity the emergent church is attempting to fashion will not be something people will give their lives to—for long.

“Young people will give their lives for an exclamation point, but they will not give their lives for a question mark, not for very long anyway” (p. 127).

“Arguing for the inherent uncertainty of knowledge causes problems when you write books trying to convince people to believe or behave in certain ways. That is to say, radical uncertainty sounds nice as a sort of protest against the perceived dogmatism of evangelical Christianity, but it gets in the way when you want to [sic] prove your point. At some point, no matter how often you rag on certainty and boast in the great mysterious unknowability of God, you will want people to be clear about your beliefs” (Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be), p. 41).

“So intrigue and ambiguity are good when the ideas in question are ones emerging leaders don’t particularly care for or care about, but when it comes to making their point, clarity is key” (p. 42).

“What is so frustrating, then, is when emerging authors claim the postmodern high ground that supposedly eschews reason, logic, and certain truth claims” (p 42).

I also find it humorous when those who downgrade truth or disdain truth as a category argue their case. How in the world can they do that? It is obvious that they want to be believed, understood, and seen as positing something, well, true. Truth obviously exists somewhere, or they would be quiet, for they would have nothing to say. They expect you to understand their words and their meaning, to have some clarity on their use of language, and ultimately that you would agree they have something worthwhile to say. Furthermore, it is very frustrating when those who go by the name “Christian,” who claim a dependence on the apostles, claim to know better than anyone else that “truth” is relative, unattainable, and allusive—except of course what they are teaching as true. No matter the false humility, they still want you to hear them clearly, understand what they are saying, and to know it is exclusively true compared to another argument—say, for instance, that truth is knowable and that God’s true Word is revealed in the Bible’s words. Eschewing truth and downgrading certainty, like poison, kills those who use it themselves. (I am so clever.)