LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE

    

   

Illustration used by permission www.greenberg-art.com

    Did you know that a fiscal conservative and an economic liberal are the same things? I did not either until I started doing some research. An elder in one of the congregations I served in the 80s once challenged me after worship. He said, "In light of that sermon it is obvious you have never read an economics book." I responded, holding up my Bible, "Oh, I have, but it is a different one than you are referring to." 

    I do not remember what the sermon was about. It probably had something to do with Jesus' social ethic which included the rich being responsible to alleviate the suffering of the poor. I would not be surprised if it dealt with the Lazarus and Dives story. (Luke 16:19-31) Regardless, it was obvious to him that I was a social liberal and not an economic liberal. 

    Writing on the site www.quora.com, Michael Danielson states, "Fiscal conservatism generally means 'being as responsible as possible with your money,' including passing balanced budgets, paying off your debt, and not engaging in deficit spending. ... Economic liberalism, similarly, generally means 'allowing economic decisions to be made at the individual level, rather than at the group level.'" Fiscal Conservatism and Economic Liberalism More than the locus of economic decisions, economic liberalism says, "You can have whatever you can afford. If you cannot afford it, society is not responsible for providing it for you (with certain exceptions like national defense)." 

    Since the Supreme Court of the United States had ruled that corporations are individuals, by extension they are solely responsible to and for themselves. It is in their interest to keep costs, including wages, down so profit will be even higher. The concept of social responsibility plays a very, very small role in corporate ethics. "Laborers, if you want retirement income you save for it; if you want medical coverage, you pay for it; if you want a living wage, forget it." The rich get richer. The middle class vanishes. The poor barely subsist. 

    I do not know about you, but to me, that sounds like the old feudal system. Roy Orbison, in 1962, recorded the song Working for the Man. In common parlance "working for the man" means working for the government or other entity in authority in menial, oppressive conditions. It could be a slave working on a plantation, as a miner, as one laying rails, working in a sweatshop, working on a penal chain gang, or any other job providing little if any, of an opportunity for advancement. 

    Encumbered with debt, stuck in dead-end jobs, static or declining wages, increasing taxes, those in the lower and middle economic groupings have a depth of rage. Any promise of things being made better is grasped, even when not based in reality. In the mid-Appalachian region where steel mills and coal mines have all but disappeared, a promise to bring back coal rings in ears dying to hear such empty promises as something to "take to the bank." 

    The Church must call the gluttonous greed of "the man" sin of the first degree. The Church must emphasize communal, social responsibility, of caring for the "least of these." The Church must call upon the lords of government, finance and supersized corporations to improve the lives of those in the lowest rungs of the social ladder. The Church must be a conscience in a secular society. If we take Scripture seriously we must remember that in Hebrew and Greek the word righteous means justice. The demand for justice must be our clarion call

WHAT WAS HE THINKIN'?

In the aftermath of the horrific event in Las Vegas, one of the recurring questions by law enforcement and the general public is "What was he thinking?" Ironically, a country song by Dierks Bentley refrains the question "What was I thinkin'? He tells the story about getting carried away by his lustful desires which led to problems. At one point he says, I know what I was feelin' But what was I thinkin'? (Dierks Bentley, 2003, Capitol Records) When our children were young and would do something not so smart I often asked them, "What were you thinking?" 

It appears the gunman left no overt clues as to why he decided to kill and wound so many people. On the news today, it was revealed this was not the first time he had rented rooms in a hotel overlooking an outside musical venue. It is obvious from his planning and preparation that he was not stupid. He had reconnoitered the venue; booked a two-bedroom suite giving him two angles of fire; laid in a cache of weapons and ammunition; and set up cameras which would give him a view of the hallway outside his closed door. Still, we question, "what was he thinkin'?" Another way of asking the question is "what was his state of mind?" We may never know for sure. 

With any mass slaughter and wounding of innocents, we look for explanations. We knee-jerk to blaming the instrument of the slaughter, in this case, guns. In Rwanda it was machetes. In Germany, it was gas chambers. In other places, it was chemical weapons. We want rational answers for the irrational. The history of our country contains many instances when otherwise "good people" have been involved in mass shootings which have taken many lives. People of the First Nation and African-Americans have been killed in great numbers just because they were not white descendants of Europeans. In the last few decades, the mass killings have continued, even of those of European descent. 

I think there is only one explanation. In the perpetrators of mass killing and wounding we see evil enfleshed. In our rational, scientific world we seldom use the reasoning for hideous actions as the personification of evil. The Apostle writes, For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Ephesians 6:12, NIV, http://biblehub.com/ephesians/6-12.htm)  

IT IS TIME, MAKE THE CALL

Many years (forty-one and a few months) ago, I was serving a yoked pastorate in Ohio. Most of the mainline pastors in the county served as volunteer chaplains at the county seat hospital. We usually served for a week, two or three times a year. It gave me a great opportunity to not only serve the patients, but also the staff and doctors.

One week when serving my turn in the hospital, my wife was admitted to give birth to our daughter. In fact, that night a record for the number of births in that hospital was set. After our daughter was delivered and my wife was to be wheeled to her room, I was trailing along to go with her. One of the nurses grabbed my arm and said, "Grab the other end of that bed (pointing to one other than the one my wife was on) and help me move this one 'cause she's ready to deliver now and I need help." I did. It was a hectic night.

The next day I was in the hospital to visit my wife and our daughter, and to fulfill my responsibilities as chaplain. During the course of the day, two simultaneous "code reds" (cardio arrest) were called. One was in the ICU and one in a lower level of the hospital in the x-ray department. There were family members present only for the ICU incident. It was a small hospital which meant whichever doctors were in the house responded to a "code red." The doctor who responded to the call in the x-ray department happened to be our pediatrician. The doctor in ICU was a cardiologist. The event in the ICU settled down quickly and the family was relieved that things had gone well this time.

It had been quite some time since I had checked to see how the situation in the x-ray department was going/had gone. I walked up to the open door and looked in. Our pediatrician was performing CPR compressions. It was obvious that he had been at it a long time. As I stood there watching, one of the nurses laid her hand on the doctor's shoulder and said, "Doctor, it is time, make the call." With a very deep sigh, he looked at the clock and pronounced the time of death. He then looked over and saw me standing in the doorway. Pointing to me he said to the others in the room, "Do you know what he named his daughter who was born last night? He named her life. (Chaya from the Hebrew for life.) Thank you all, I'm going upstairs where there is life." The doctor and I walked to the maternity ward together in silence.

Sometimes pastoring a fragile congregation can be like the situation for both of the doctors. In one life was snatched from the jaws of death. In the other, no matter how long the compressions had been done or how much longer they might be done, the call has to be made. Time of death, 19 September 2017 1430 hours. Yet, in another place life goes on.

The first question and answer in the Heidelberg Catechism are:
Q. What is your only comfort in life and in death?
A. That I am not my own, but belong—body and soul, in life and in death—to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ. ... Because I belong to him, Christ, by his Holy Spirit, assures me of eternal life and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.

In this assurance, when it is time, we can make the call.

PROPHETS

As I was reading on Facebook this morning I came across this report. 

Ralph Drollinger, the minister who leads regular prayer and Bible study meetings with members of President Trump’s cabinet and members of Congress  ….  Drollinger’s comments about prayer were part of a discussion of separation of church and state. He says that while the Bible supports institutional separation—no state Church—it does not support “influential” separation. (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/leader-of-trump-cabinet-bible-study-god-only-hears-prayers-of-righteous-christians/)

Rev. Drollingmeer and Rev. Barber (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Barber_II)   want the same thing, to influence the agenda of the government while maintaining an institutional separation. The difference between them is a polarity of Scriptural interpretation and application. It is a significant polarization. Rev. Drollinger identifies with the evangelical conservative theological portion of the Church. Rev. Barber identifies with the progressive theological portion of the Church. Historically, it can be argued that Rev. Dollinger's theological perspective is a more modern perspective, and Rev. Barber represents a more traditional and conservative perspective.

As I have stated in other instances, one of my seminary professors, Dr. Catherine Gunsalus Gonzalez, stated that one who truly is a biblical conservative will be a social liberal (progressive). Her reasoning, as I remember it, was true biblical conservatives take scripture so seriously as to not take it lightly. Biblical conservatives hear the word and the Word issuing a clear call to be on the side of the hungry, the lonely, the sick, the imprisoned, the widow, the orphan, the oppressed and the alien. These are themes which are unavoidable in the Hebrew texts, the Gospels, and Epistles.

Biblical conservatives, while giving thanks for the land in which they dwell, do not equate any land, nation or empire as "God's Chosen." To identify one's nation as "God's Chosen" is to make it an idol, and to become blind to its faults. Nor do  Biblical conservatives look to a human governor, president or emperor as God's anointed one.

I admit I resonate with Rev. Barber's letter to the ministers who met with and prayed for President Trump while laying hands on him. 

(https://thinkprogress.org/an-open-letter-to-clergy-who-prayed-with-trump-7876ee87dbc2). 1 Timothy 2:2 urges us to pray for those in national leadership. The act of "laying on of hands" is recognized as an act of blessing or setting aside particular calling. Of course, the pastors have responded. (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/living/religion/article162559693.html)

It seems we have the archetypal standoff between the court prophets and the prophets who stand outside the seats of political power.

Is it possible to be a biblical conservative, evangelical, and progressive Christian? I like to think so. 

Federalism & Anti-Federalism

From the very beginning of our national government two philosophies have been in conflict. One the one side is federalism. Federalism advocates a strong central government for the whole Nation. Anti-federalism advocates a weak central government in favor of “states’ rights.” Are there certain issues which demand a single standard across all states, or is each state free to establish their own standards?

Imagine a situation where each of the fifty states establishes its own standards for automobile safety? An automobile purchased in Pennsylvania may be illegal to drive in Ohio or New Jersey. We live in a highly mobile society having different standards in each state would be unacceptable. Therefore, we have national standards for automobile safety.

Historically, there were “free states” and “slave states.” Some states prohibited individuals from owning slaves and some permitted the owning of slaves. Part, and only part, of what led to the Civil War/the War of Northern Aggression/the War Between the States was the issue of federalism versus anti-federalism. Shall slavery be prohibited nationally, or shall it be up to each state to make the decision?

Today we see this conflict between federalism and anti-federalism being played out on several fronts. Shall transgender people be required to use the restroom according to the gender on their birth certificate, or may a transgender people use the restroom of sexual identity? What happens when a transgender person lives in a state which permits the individual to make the choice of which restroom to use then is traveling across country into a state which does permit restroom choice?   Shall each state set its own standards for accommodating students with special needs, or should there be a basic national standard? What happens when a student moves from New York to Texas where the two states have widely divergent standards?

We have seen the conflict between federalism and anti-federalism play out in many church structures. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is a case in point. In 1983 the United Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Presbyterian Church in the United States merged to form the PC (U.S.A.) The UPCUSA tended toward a more federalist church government. One could move from one presbytery (regional governing body) to another and be confident that the rules and procedures were basically the same. The Book of Order (the operational portion of the church constitution) detailed common nomenclature in the structure and procedures. In the PCUS, which tended more toward an anti-federalist church government concerning the relationship of the presbyteries and the more inclusive governing bodies of the synods and the General Assembly. The Book of Church Order provided for more latitude from presbytery to presbytery in procedures and processes.

With the 1983 merger two styles were not fully integrated. The Book of Order, following the merger, more closely followed the federalist model. The across the Nation the federalist and anti-federalist divide in society was becoming wider and wider. This divide was evidenced in the rewrite of the Book of Order, which took effect in 2011. Many of the “regulative” portions of the Book of Order were eliminated, giving more freedom to the presbyteries to design their own structures. No longer could one depend on presbyteries being similar in nomenclature and procedures. Anti-federalism was winning over federalism.

As the General Assembly (the national governing body) made controversial decisions allowing ordination and marriage of gay and lesbian people, the resistance to the federalist model grew. Additionally, the property trust clause in the Book of Order, which maintains that if a congregations disaffiliates from the PC (USA) the property reverts to the presbytery as a trustee for the denomination. Congregations insist the property is theirs. The property issue usually ends up in the civil courts. Some courts rule in favor of the denomination and some in favor of the congregation. It all depends on whether the philosophy of the court tends toward federalism or anti-federalism.

In civil government and ecclesiastical government we are in a pitched battle e between federalism and anti-federalism. The momentum presently seems to be on the side of the anti-federalist. In fact, one adviser to the President is so anti-federalist that his stated goal in the destruction of central government regulations over all aspects of life. Either one side will win out or some compromise between the two poles will have to be developed. Ideologues will fight it out. Moderates will seek compromise.