Category: Culture

R. C. Sproul, the younger, has written a piece on the building of the Mosques at ground Zero. I do not share his reasoning. First I offer Jr.’s article and then I offer my response.

With Liberty and Justice for All

“It’s never easy to think clearly and dispassionately on issues that we are passionate about. September 11, 2001 is indeed a day that will live in infamy. Nearly a decade later the wounds remain raw, and understandably so. A wise man, however, is one who submits to the Word of God even when his emotions or desires lead in another direction. Let’s take, then, a careful look at our question.

First, what do we mean by “right?” One simple way to answer the question is, “No. It is never right for any group promoting a false religion to build houses of worship anywhere.” Islam is false, a pack of lies, and was so before September 11. Mosques are not centers of worship for the true and living God. They should not exist. It’s not right for Muslims to build mosques anywhere.

But that’s not really the issue here. Many of those opposed to this particular mosque in this particular spot are quite content with mosques being built in other places. They have no interest in forbidding all false houses of worship from being built. The actual question of the day seems to be something more like this- should the state forbid Muslims from building a mosque on this particular site? Suddenly the issue isn’t so easy. I appreciate the pain such a building might cause. I understand the uproar. But I have to ask, which is the greater evil? A mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero, or a state determining which religions can built what buildings on what pieces of land?

In terms of the use of force by the state, they have no business keeping any landowner from putting any building on his or her property. If the Muslims own this piece of land, and wish to build a mosque there, it is not just wrong but wicked for anyone to use the power of the state to stop them. It is in fact a violation ofthe 8th commandment. It is a form of theft to limit by force of law how someone might use his or her own property. It is also a violation of the fourth amendment to the Constitution.

I believe that Allah is not God, and that Mohammed was a liar. I believe Muslims are dead in their trespasses and sins, and cannot even see the kingdom of heaven. I believe their religion is demonic from top to bottom. And I believe every Muslim bears the image of God. As a Christian that must mean that Muslims are due justice from the state. Their property rights should be protected by the state, and affirmed by all right thinking people.

The greatest thing we can do to slow the building of mosques in this spot, and everywhere is by proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ who is Lord over all. Let them build their mosques, and we will build disciples. Let them build their mosques and we will serve Him as He builds His church. Let us love our enemies and love liberty, and justice, for all.”

I think the overall difference between R. C. Sproul and I on this issue is the role of the State. He obviously thinks that it is more wicked for a State to decide which religious institutions are built than it is for a pagan institution to be built. I, on the other hand, would contend that the State, under the authority of Christ, is duty bound not to let pagan houses of idolatry to flourish where they rule. Freedom is not defined by the State allowing all forms of idolatry to flourish and justice is not defined by the State allowing religions of injustice to gain a foothold where they hold their charge under sovereign God.

Now, R. C., using a Libertarian argument, suggests that if the Muslims own the land then they can do with it what they please and we ought not to expect the State to impinge upon their freedom to do with the land what they please.

However, I do not think R. C.’s premise is correct. It is often the case that the State should not allow people who own land to do immoral things with that land. For example, should a god-fearing State have the right / duty to keep an Abortionist who owns the land from building an abortuary? The answer is clearly yes. Ownership of land does not give the right to perpetuate murder on that private property.

So, the State certainly does have that duty/right to deny owners of land from doing God forbidden things on that land. All because a person owns a piece of land that does not give them the right to do wicked things with that land. A righteous state, in keeping with its responsibilities to the first table would not allow pagans to build houses of worship on the land the pagan owns simply because they own that land.

Now, some will howl that the State doesn’t prevent Muslims from building in other places so why should the State stop them from building here.

That is a fair question.

The fault however is not in the State not allowing Muslims to build their pagan shrine at ground zero. The fault is in the State allowing other pagan shrines to be built elsewhere. All because they get it wrong elsewhere in forbidding idolatry that does not make it wrong for them to get it right here in forbidding idolatry.

In my humble estimation the argument offered here is an example of Libertarianism run amok.

Most people are not aware that it is Muslim belief that when they build a Mosque that Land upon which the Mosque is built is theirs for perpetuity. Thus the building of a Mosque is an act of Dominion by Muslims. The West is committing civilization-cide by allowing Muslims or Jews to build Mosques or Temples. And R. C. suggests that disciples of Christ shouldn’t oppose this?

There is no liberty pursued in embracing any Muslim action. There is no justice in supporting the building of this Mosque. Indeed, quite to the contrary all support for the building of this Mosque is support for slavery and injustice as that is what Islam brings everywhere it spreads.

By all means … make disciples and part of what it means to be a disciple of Christ is to stand against the advance of both Islam and the pagan State.

Roman historian Tacitus dated the beginning of the Roman end of Liberty with the end of free speech. America and the West has come to that same historical pivot point where, through the deadening effect of political correctness on our speech, we are nearing the end of liberty. We no longer have liberty to speak plainly about any number of subjects, and the inability to speak plainly about these subjects serves to further the religious and political ends of those who would disembowel the theological, ideological, and cultural underpinnings of the West.

Because of the corrosive affect of Political correctness upon our speech — and so upon our thought — we are in danger of no longer having the liberty to speak against inferior sexuality, against inferior ideologies, against inferior pagan religions, against inferior cultures, or against inferior political philosophies. The campaign of political correctness against liberty of speech has managed, through the craft of subterfuge, to convince or cow people into thinking that superior thought and speech is that thought and speech that doesn’t see anything as being inferior except the belief that some truths, or cultural arrangement are superior to other truths or cultural arrangements.

We have to restore our language. To restore our language is to, at the same time, restore our ability to think critically. In order to get back our liberty we are going to have to begin again to say what we think irrespective of those who don’t like it and regardless of how people howl at ideas they don’t like. With that beginning we can proceed to speak plainly to the West again and wrench it’s thinking away from the PC cultural Marxist thought police.

A few days ago the NAACP (the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) accused the Tea Parties of being racist. Now, think with me a moment. Here we have an organization, whose very name communicates its reason for existence as the explicit goal of advancing, through affirmative action, law suits, quotas, protests, and contract set-asides unique advantages for blacks over non-blacks — accusing another organization of being motivated by race.

Sometimes it just hurts to think about irony.

Tim Phillips

“The article by Trueman

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2010/08/gay-marriage.php

is spot-on. He is not defending homosexuality, only stating that evangelicals need to be better equipped to explain why the practice is wrong — they can no longer argue from a cultural perspective, since the perspect…ive of the culture has been changing over the last few decades. When sinful practices like no-fault divorce and adultery are often tolerated in evangelicalism, a simple “ick-factor” argument is not going to be very persuasive. To use an analogous argument that James White once made, if you ask the average evangelical why he or she isn’t Roman Catholic, most cannot give a biblical/theological answer, only that they consider RC “strange” or something of the like. That’s just not a good response.”

Bret L. McAtee

If Trueman’s article is spot on he needs to learn how to write with more clarity so as to identify the spot he wants to be on. I found the article, because of its it’s ill written structure in the first couple paragraphs to be thoroughly confusing.

Tim Phillips

“What exactly was confusing about the first couple of paragraphs? All he says is that the decision wasn’t a surprise, a significant comment on a morning talk show, and the fact that there is a generational gap on the issue. One factor that you may not be accounting for — he is British. There’s a certain subtle rhetoric that can be somewhat more difficult to grasp. My point was that the substance of his argument (in the latter part of the article) was spot on.”

Bret L. McAtee

I would prefer to understand it as a certain subtle confusion that is more difficult to grasp precisely because it lacks clarity.

What was confusing is his search for a sociological answer to why there is a difference between the under 35 crowd and the over 35 crowd quite apart from the realization that the problem is theological.

What was confusing was his invoking the idea of culture w/o a corresponding understanding that culture is merely theology externalized. He writes about our culture informing us on the issue without seeming to realize that culture is theology a couple steps removed.

What was confusing is that the man made gross generalizations. Not everyone over 35 was clueless on the biblical reasons as to why homosexuality is wrong. Indeed, a person only need be conversant with Romans 1:16f.

Also, I found his use of the word “Bigoted” to be confusing. While, technically it is acceptable to speak of being bigoted against things like “Apple Juice,” or “GM products” most commonly the word is used to designate an antagonistic attitude towards something that is otherwise perfectly acceptable.

In terms of his bullet points … those weren’t confusing so much as they were “Captain Obvious” statements.

Tim Phillips

“Actually, that is not a very good definition of “bigoted” — it indicates utter intolerance for a belief or opinion that differs from one’s own. Acceptability is not the determining factor.

I agree with your first and second points in that the problem is ultimately theological, and culture ultimately reflects theology (whether good or bad). But I don’t think he would deny that either (the man teach historical theology at a major seminary). In fact, that seems to be precisely what he is saying. The culture has opposed homosexuality, but not necessarily for biblical/theological reasons. While that may not be true for everyone over the age of 35, he was reacting to a statement from a morning talk show; I’m over 35 and did not think for a moment he was including me in that demographic.

Obviously, if the last points were “Captain Obvious” statements, that would seem to mean you found them very clear.”

Bret L. McAtee

I found the latter points clear. It is the first couple paragraphs that remain thoroughly confusing.

If the culture has opposed homosexuality it has opposed it for theological reasons. Now, all of those theological reasons might not be Christian but they were nevertheless theological.

And in terms of teaching at a Reformed Seminary?

That and 50 cents might get a cup of coffee from me. I think the best thing that could happen to the ministry is to decentralize the training away from the Seminaries.

Tim Phillips

He teaches at Westminster Seminary. I did not make the comment to laud seminaries, only to point out that he understands theology. And culture. Read his _Minority Report_ or _The Wages of Spin_ as examples. I won’t dispute your last point about seminaries, except to be careful not to make a gross generalization there. Not all seminaries are bad. Actually, I’m of the opinion that one solution would be to have pastoral training done by pastors, which I think is similar to the point you are making.

I think it would be helpful to make a distinction between being “theological” and being “biblical.” The two should be — but are not necessarily — the same thing (i.e., cults have bad theology, but it is not biblical theology — at least not well-informed biblical theology). Not everyone opposes homosexuality for specifically biblical reasons. They oppose it because their parents told them to, Ozzie and Harriet society told them it was wrong, secular psychology told them it was deviant behavior. Or, they found it personally odd. His point was that this might coincide with biblical teaching, but the person did not arrive at that conclusion or necessarily biblical reasons.”

Bret L. McAtee

Tim,

Yes, but in a culture, such as ours, that has historically such deep roots in Biblical categories and Christian theology, even the culture holding people in place is a result of Biblical influence. Ozzie and Harriet, on this issue, were who they were, because deep deep down the culture had been shaped by Christian categories.

Now, I quite agree that perhaps people should have been more epistemologically self conscious regarding their belief systems but you know not everyone is called to examine the contours of a culture. Some people — indeed most people, including Christians — just swim in the culture w/o questioning the nature of the water. I don’t fault the over 35 crowd to much if it was the case that the remnants of a Christian culture was holding them in place and I certainly don’t refer to them as “Bigoted.”

Now that our culture has changed in the direction of pagan homosexuality people who are both under and over 35 need to work on understanding Biblically the most self evident of realities as to why men and women are exclusive fits.

Personally, I long for the a time when culture is so influenced by Christian categories I don’t need to spend my time proving from Scripture that men should only marry women.See

Tim Phillips

“Yes, I would agree with most of what you say (if not all with the last post). I suppose much of my reaction is can be summarized in a discussion I had with one gentleman, a congregant at a church in Mississippi. Let’s just say he was well over the 35 line. During a pastoral visit, he raised the question of homosexuality, and asked, quite honestly, if the Bible did indeed teach against it. I assured him it did, and I later preached a sermon on that very subject. The point is that he believed the right thing, even thought it to be biblical, but because the prevailing culture was changing, he was confused. Some were telling him the Bible taught something else. Some were telling him not to look at the Bible at all. That is one reason I recommended the book by White and Neill above. It addresses many of these issues and the objections that folks raise at the biblical teaching (the ol’ shellfish argument for instance). Plus, it’s much less confusing than Trueman.”

Bret L. McAtee

Rapprochement! You’ll remember that my point at the outset is that Trueman’s article in question was confusing.

Thanks for the discussion Tim. I am always for clarity.

Rob Harrison — PCUSA Pastor in Warsaw Indiana

Umm…Proposition 8 isn’t a theological document, it’s a legislative one. You might as well complain that Colossians 1:15-20 doesn’t contain provisions for enforcement, or that the Nicene Creed doesn’t specify which agency is to oversee it. Your entire argument is a non sequitur.

Bret

It is precisely because Prop 8 is a legislative document that it is also a theological document. The whole thing breathes theology. My argument isn’t a non-sequitur but rather yours is. All documents, including judicial legislative documents, are theological documents as all documents are informed by and are derivative of a theology.

RH

Bret,

Nice unsupported assertions.

Your first one is nonsensical; your second one assumes facts not in evidence, and even assuming those facts does not prove what you’re trying to assert. Even if one grants that “all documents are informed by and are derivative of a theology,” that does not mean that “all documents are theological documents.” Otherwise, one might make free to criticize your grocery receipts for the lousy quality of their theology.

The fact of it is, Proposition 8 is merely a codification in the state constitution of a principle which had always existed in the laws of California, in response to judicial aggression against those laws in the service of ideology. Is there an underlying theology to the desire to prevent the laws from being rewritten by the courts? You assume so; but one might just as well support it for reasons which have zero to do with a theological understanding of homosexuality. At the same time, calls to repentance and gospel faithfulness would be out of place and inappropriate in it, because *it is an assertion of legal principle, not theological principle.*

As such, I repeat, the original argument here is a *non sequitur* based on a misunderstanding of what’s actually going on.”

Bret responds,

Rob,

Are you being purposely thick or is this just your natural disposition?

All documents, just as all of reality, is theological in nature. You can not compartmentalize that which creates all reality from the reality it creates. Theology informs literature so that literature is just theology under another guise. Theology informs legislation so that legislation is just theology under another guise. Theology informs economic theories so that economic theories are just theology under another guise. Theology informs history textbooks so that history textbooks are merely theology under another guise. etc. etc. etc.

And yes I would include your grocery list. Why do you have on your list what you have on your list? And one might be welcome to criticize my grocery list if on that grocery list I have a product that is known to be destructive.

You’re reasoning is specious and without quality and your showing that the theology that informs your reasoning is of a nature where you have compartmentalized reality so that some areas are informed by the God of the Bible while other areas just exist. This is foolishness on stilts.

All documents are theological documents. What is in those documents is shaped and informed and derivative of some theology.

Next you go on to blather about Prop 8 being merely a codification of the state constitution … a state constitution that is reflective of some theology.

Even if someone supports the State constitution they are supporting it for theological reasons even if they cloak those theological reasons in the guise of some other type of speech.

Now, one doesn’t have to have calls for repentance in a legal document in order for it to be a document that is informed by Christian theology. Furthermore, all legal principle is an expression of theological principle. Any denial of that on your part merely communicates to me your theology — a theology that compartmentalizes reality and sees the only unity in reality to be disunity.

Since all this is true, I repeat that your argumentation is a huge non-sequitur. Indeed, what you are advancing, as a result of your theology, might be the largest non-sequitur that has ever existed.

RH

“You have a serious confusion of terms going on here, and a serious confusion of categories as well. Yes, obviously, all of reality is theological in nature. Equally, all of reality is scientific in nature, because God created everything a…ccording to a particular physical order, and all of reality is aesthetic in nature, because that particular physical order has aesthetic qualities due to the character and nature of God. One can go on and on with this, and yes, on a philosophical, theological and scientific level, one must always be aware of the interpenetration of categories.

*However.* This does not mean that we cannot categorize. The fact that there is theology in narrative or poetic sections of the Bible does not mean that we can treat them exactly the same as, say, the letters of Paul; genre matters. The fact that there is aesthetic quality to an office building does not mean we can judge it as if it were intended to be a Gothic cathedral; yes, a skyscraper is less beautiful than Notre Dame, but again, genre matters, and the two buildings have different functions which should produce different forms. And a legal document is designed to serve legal functions, not theological ones, and the fact that one can evaluate and critique its underlying theology does not mean that one should expect it to make statements which do not serve that legal function, or judge it negatively because it does not, because *that is not its purpose.* Genre matters, and the only system in which the legal and the theological are simply fused, undifferentiated, is the theocracy–and we do not have a theocracy. As such, even granting that the legal document ought to be an expression of the same reality as the theological document, there is and ought to be a meaningful distinction between the two–and ignoring that distinction creates a non sequitur.

To the man who only has a hammer, everything is a nail . . .”

Bret responds,

Hey Nail-man ….

Science is only as good as the theology that it is dependent upon. For example, if my evolutionist friend and I happen upon a fossil, my evolutionist friend because of the theology informing his science concludes that the fossil proves evolution. However, I, because of my Biblical theology informing my science conclude that it proves that God created the world in 6 days … all good. You see … once again, science is only as good as the theology that it is derivative of.

We could continue to press this point w/ aesthetics. Why do people make anti-art and call it “art” while other people make “art” and call it art. The answer is the theology that is informing their aesthetics.

Are you getting it yet Rob? All of life is theological. This is not to say that Theology doesn’t express itself in different avenues and streams. It certainly does. Literature is distinct from science is distinct from history is distinct from economics, is distinct from the juridical but it all is derivative of some theology.

What do they teach people in Seminary these days?

I quite agree that genre matters. Because God is so vast, and infinite we can expect different genres to incarnate theology in different ways. You don’t build a office building to be a Cathedral because the purpose in the theology that is driving both of those is distinct — distinct but still theological. One might say that an office building is theology at work, while a church is theology at worship, while a sports arena is theology at play.

Getting back to legal documents — when legal documents do what Prop 8 has done it must be adjudicated not only on the legislative (judicial) legal level but also the theological level since it is forcing a theology on the public square. That’s pretty simple right?

Finally, we do have a theocracy. All forms of governments are theocracies. It is never a question of “if theocracy,” but always a question of “which theocracy.” Our theocracy is one where the God is Demos. The voice of the people is the voice of God. This is why we call it democracy.

To the man who say’s no hammer exists there are no such things as nails.

Now, if you want to continue this conversational pursuit I’ll be waiting.