Past Mistakes and Present Credibility

It is striking how past errors affect present credibility, lingering for decades. William Voegeli illustrates this well with his Claremont Institute article, "Civil Rights and the Conservative Movement" (accessed via the WSJ). He follows the conservative movement and particularly, the late founder of National Review, William Buckley, Jr., in his interactions (or lack thereof) with the civil rights movement. Reading it with an eye to my own fallibility, I was humbled and affected with just how much more significant a leader's failures are than his successes.

The conservative movement and the civil rights movement are not inherently in opposition. Buckley frequently and publicly expressed hope for racial equality. However, the key tenet of modern conservatism is favor for small government and states' rights over centralized government. "It was within this framework that National Review conservatism addressed the issues raised by the civil rights movement. Integration and black progress were welcomed when they were the result of private actions like the boycotts of segregated buses or lunch counters, which Buckley judged 'wholly defensible' and 'wholly commendable.'"

However, it was also from these convictions that they opposed any and all federal legislation to achieve equality across the races, because this appealed to an unconstitutional "Big Government." In the 1950s and 60s, the means could not excuse the ends, no matter how appalling the situation. Clearly, they were wrong. No amount of lipservice by Buckley and friends could place them on the right side.

Viewed from 2008, the movement Buckley led was detached from the civil rights struggle because conservatives, despite frequent and apparently sincere expressions of hope for racial harmony, rarely viewed the fight against pervasive, entrenched and episodically brutal racial discrimination as a question of great moral urgency. Conservatives were personally opposed to Jim Crow as liberals of a later generation insisted they were personally opposed to abortion [insightful comparison]. Making the opposition personal was a way to keep the states, in the case of abortion, or the nation, when it came to segregation, from making it governmental.

Present-day conservatives, thankfully, have come around. Buckley himself has expressed regret for his earlier position, agreeing that federal imposition was necessary at the time to effect change. But, in the world of ideas, the damage is done.

Since then, "conservatives have spent half a century trying to overcome the suspicion that they are indifferent to black Americans' legitimate demands, and indulgent toward people who are blatantly hostile to blacks." Further,

The constitutional principles at the heart of this project [states' rights, small government, etc.] were—are—ones that liberals find laughable, fantastic and bizarre. Because they cannot take them seriously, they reject the possibility that conservatives do. Thus, liberals dismiss "states' rights" as nothing more than a code word for racism. There is no point in conservatives' even asking what the code word for states' rights is, because liberals cannot imagine anyone believes this to be a legitimate political concern.

From this viewpoint, conservatism's "reasons" for opposing civil rights were, in fact and from the beginning, excuses for oppressing blacks. Buckley's least judicious writings make it difficult to wave away that allegation. These are moments in conservatism's history where it was, in Mr. Goldberg's sense, worse than merely missing in action in the battle for racial equity.

This perception colors all statements about affirmative action, welfare policy, taxation, etc. Much-too-late "acknowledgments that the suffering and national disgrace caused by segregation required stronger measures have not satisfied their opponents. Given the political advantages to liberals of conflating racism and conservatism, it's doubtful there is any degree of contrition they would find acceptable."

Errors in judgment have incredible effects on a movement's credibility, especially errors with moral import. The ramifications extend for decades, or at least until the other side makes an equally big blunder (remember, Andrew Jackson was a Democrat; Abraham Lincoln was a Republican).

Today's Christians constantly reckon with the church's past -- slavery in the SBC; Scopes' trial science in the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. I still hear about the Crusades fought 900 years ago! When we seek to speak up on issues like biblical manhood/womanhood, sexuality, science and faith, we have to fight off red herrings and ad hominem arguements before we can get to the issue at hand. We have to explain that "this issue's different." "We haven't made a mistake this time."

Remember, we stand on the shoulders of giants -- imperfect giants whose occasional wobbles threaten to collapse us all. People will stand on your shoulders, too. Be careful and stand firm.

Online Sermons: Too Much of a Good Thing?

The internet is a marvel. We take for granted all that is available to us at lightning speed. But, just pause and consider how many hours of audio, hours of video and libraries of text is contained in the nebulous space we call the world wide web. It's mind-blowing.

Evangelical Christians haven't wasted anytime taking advantage of this technology. I could listen to sermons uninterrupted for years. This has been a blessing to many of us, but how has it changed us?

Nathan Walter shares his thoughts in "iPod, iSermon, iRighteous?" in the July-August issue of the Briefing (this article not available online). Here is a rundown of perceived dangers:

• Sermon listening is disconnected from the gospel relationship of pastor and congregation. Sermons should have a context based on a pastor's knowledge of his flock and the flock's knowledge of their pastor.
• Sermon listening risks guru-ism. We learn from Driscoll/Piper/Dever/Stott/Carson rather than God and his Word.
• We grow discontent with the regular preachers and teachers God has given us.
• It replaces focused personal reading and study. We just listen to sermons, and even that as a secondary activity -- while running, cleaning, driving.

Here are his suggestions:

• Vary your diet of preachers, and sometimes, why not simply listen to an audio Bible?
• Be wary of comparing the online preacher (publicly or privately) to your own God-given pastors.
• Don't forget your responsibilities as a listener. Test everything. Never listen without your Bible open. Chase up the passages and write notes.
• Keep audio sermons in their place: like good Christian books, they can help us grow enormously, but we mustn't let them loom too large. Nothing beats the godly discipline of reading your Bible.
• As with all preaching and teaching, don't just listen to listen. Listen so that you might put into practice.

Sounds like good advice to me.

Tired of Rihanna? Me too.

I like music -- all kinds. However, I like reading and listening to news far more. Most of my time and extra income is spent in these areas. Sometimes, though, you get tired of Zimbabwe and FannieMae and Barack, and even sometimes canonical reading and imputation and the culture of death. I just want to listen to some good music. Unfortunately, my books don't have a play button. The radio's not much help either. I'm always surprised upon my quarterly flip to the local top40 station to hear the same song I heard 3, 6, and 9 months ago. There's got to be more than Lil Wayne.

That's why I have gotten tremendous use out of NPR Music. They pull music from all over the place and make full-length songs available (and sometimes whole albums and live concerts). All Songs Considered is a great place for up-and-coming artists and albums. I often have need for good classical music when I need something to play at work without scaring the Middletown natives. And sometimes I'll even cringe through five heavy metal songs in the name of my friend, Justin Mullins. It's where I discovered the Fleet Foxes (great concert) and, yes, even listened to Missy Elliot's new single.

Check it out. You can set up your own playlist with hours of music and minimal advertising. You don't even have to listen to the commentary -- just scroll down to "Just the Music."

Kingdom Through Covenant

Just completed Peter Gentry's recent article in the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (vol. 12 no. 1, Spring 2008), "Kingdom Through Covenant: Humanity as the Divine Image." It is great! Go to your nearest seminary library and read it!

He walks through Genesis 1:26-28 very slowly, considering the biblical theological framework first and then an exegesis of the text with attention to its cultural and linguistic setting. But buyer beware! This isn't your standard systematic theology's image of God.

Here are some quotes to whet your whistle:

"In biblical revelation God communicates in the culture and language of the people. Yet in employing language God also fills the terms with new meaning. The key to correct interpretation, therefore, is to compare and contrast the biblical text and the data from the contemporary cultures. One must not only notice similarities between the Bible and the ancient Near Eastern background, but the differences which show the new meaning being revealed by God." (26)

"Genesis 1:26 defines a divine-human relationship with two dimensions: one vertical and one horizontal. First, it defines human ontology in terms of a covenant relationship between God and man on the one hand and second, it defines a covenant relationship between man and the earth on the other. The relationship between humans and God is best captured by the term sonship. The relationship between humans and the creation may be expressed by the terms kingship and servanthood, or better, servant kingship." (32)

"God has planned a new creation -- a new heavens and a new earth. Unlike the first creation where he first made the place and afterwards the people to live there, in the new creation he is first making the people and afterwards the place where they will live." (33)

"The relationship between Gen 2:8-17 and Gen 1:26-27 is significant. Gen 2:8-17 explains the relationship between "likeness" and "image" in the covenant relationship between man and God. Only when the father-son relationship is nurtured through worship, fellowship, and obedient love will humankind appropriately and properly reflect and represent to the world the kind of kingship and rule intrinsic to God himself. Kingship is effected through covenant relationship." (39)

Is a church still a church by any other name?

Hopefully, I'll catch up on my posts soon. In the meantime, check out this discussion in Matthias Media's The Briefing between Tony Payne, Simon Flinders and Steve Timmis. Steve Timmis' new book is the occasion for the dialogue. Entitled Total Church, it's a book which my church planting buddies say is all the craze in the UK and AU.

I look forward to reading the book, but while we wait for a US publisher, read this interchange. It focuses chiefly on what/who is the church, which has all kinds of implications for church practice. I find myself moved by both sides of the debate. If you're in a similar place, take advantage of listening in to these wise brothers' conversation.