A response to Thabiti Anyabwile

This is a response to Thabiti Anyabwile’s article, "The Myth of Impeccable Individualism." Although he makes good points and uses Scripture, his interpretation raises questions. 

To whom is God speaking in Isaiah 1?  

Thabiti Anyabwile quotes Isaiah 1:11-17 to back up his contention that God deals with us not just as individuals, but as societies. This verse, like many often quoted in questions of social justice, is from the Old Testament. What has changed since then, and how do New Testament believers apply these verses? While such questions may seem unnecessary, they are important in light of the fact that these verses were not addressed to any old nation, but to Israel as the people of God. In our day and age, Israel is not the people of God in the way it was in the Old Testament. So, to whom is God speaking in this verse? Can this verse be applied to whole societies consisting of professing Christians along with those who do not call themselves believers? I would say no, for several reasons. First, no nation today is really the people of God the way Israel was. Israel was to be a theocracy. For them, theocracy was no violation of human rights but God’s will. The kings had the right and duty to do the following: persecute people for their religious beliefs and practices, punish sexual encounters between consenting adults, and finance religious behavior. In ancient Israel, such things were right and good because Israel was the people of God. Unless we, as a nation, wish to hold the whole nation to the standard of God’s word through legal force, we cannot equate our nation with Israel. Such a view does not cause us to fall back on the notion of individualism. We, as Christians, are part of a community, the community of faith, the visible church, consisting of both the truly regenerate and those who profess Christianity but are deceived. I believe this community corresponds to Israel because those who rule over it may hold those in it to the standards of God’s Word. Religious diversity could not be tolerated in Israel, as it cannot be tolerated among church members. You cannot be a member of a proper, Bible-believing church and be a Hindu, for instance. 

For this reason, I see corporate responsibility as definitely existing within the church, particularly within each denomination, and especially within congregations, where people are more likely to know one another’s business. If church members fail to confront one another about sin, they are failing their duties. If church leaders fail to exercise church discipline, they are culpable for their failure to take a stand against evil. And there come times when the church must come to an official position on questions of evil. In this way, the Church has failed to confront evil, and corporate repentance may be fitting, assuming those who take up that responsibility really do speak for the church, and act out of true contrition, not merely a fit of teenage rebellion. (See C. S. Lewis, "On the Dangers of National Repentance")

Unlike Israel, the Church lacks the wide variety of institutions and responsibilities which a sovereign nation has. Instead, believers participate in the broader economy, national government, and cultural life. As long as this world continues in its fallen state, these institutions will be marred by sin. Our duty to confront sin in these areas of society is the dicy question. 

 

The Dangers of Relativism

           So what is our problem today? The rejection of absolute truth is the main danger in our day. When we reject the outside reality of truth, we reject the outside reality of falsehood. How long before the alt-Left wises up to the terrible weapon they have taken up? How long before, instead of using relativism as a sort of short-cut weapon to defend against oppression bolstered by lies that cannot be easily refuted or against truths cruel people misuse, greedy people start using it merely for power? How long before the phrase “Women and People of Color” becomes nothing but a stock phrase to twist people’s consciences into acquiescing to whatever the person who said it demands, whether or not the thing demanded benefits anybody? How long before historians start churning out blatant lies and calling them history? How long before scientific studies come out that were never conducted at all, merely concocted as expressions of The Narrative? How long before juries turn a blind eye to the facts and condemn the white innocent with a cleaner conscience (and greater awareness of the role of race in their choice) than when they condemn the Black innocent? If there is no objective truth, there is no objective falsehood! There is only the Narrative. 

           One problem is that those who wield this weapon, be they on the right or left, have man’s better nature on their side. Nobody wants to be racist. Nobody wants to be sexist. Most people honestly wish everybody well and prospering. The scholarship bashing the West has taken so many steps that few white people of goodwill can resist the call to self-abasement. Who want  be considered selfish? So what if we don’t like the world the Left wants to bring about? We are privileged. Surely we can afford to give a little. The world we thought was so good and lovely was actually very bad, and it must be abandoned for the good of The Oppressed. So what if we don't like it. The very fact that we don't like it is what is wrong with us. We must trust those who aren't poisoned by Toxic Whiteness to build a new world for us, instead of combining perspectives and designing things with all races together. Don't you see that this kind of talk dismisses white people's perspective, making us out to be blind and deaf? Must we go, without any gradation, from having all the say to having no say? Is there really no other alternative? Now, I have heard that to counteract one extreme, the other extreme may be needed, but I fear the balance may be tipping. 

              The perspective I am talking about is perhaps best summarized in the little saying, “When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” I have trouble even beginning to go through the problems with this saying. For one, it is a kind of dogmatic assertion. While this saying can be used to attempt to palliate people who make fake oppression claims to delay or deter the cause of justice, it could also be used to mask the truth. Try saying that to the victims of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Many of them were privileged. Instead of an inditement of the excesses of that movement, might not their suffering have been, rather, a proof that equality had been achieved? Can we be sure that this saying won’t be misused? Yet perhaps the most important thing about this statement is the fact that, by and large, it isn’t true. Most white people won’t feel oppressed if fewer unarmed Black men are shot. Most won’t feel oppressed if fewer Black people go to jail. Most white people won’t feel oppressed if more Black people do well in school. 

Follow-up

This is a follow-up on my last blog. Last time, I said I believed that religious neutrality is impossible, even in politics, and that I do not think Christians have a duty to surrender cultural power. The next question is whether Christians ought to try to set up a theocracy. I am hesitant to say so. Again, when Christianity has had, or sought, that degree or kind of cultural power, things can get ugly. I no longer believe that this ugliness is inevitable, or that Christians ought to relinquish power unless that is the only way for abuses to end. However, I am wary of any efforts to seek power, as these efforts can suffer from the pitfalls common to Transformationalism. 

Transformationalism is the idea that Christians have a duty to transform this present world. What differentiates it from ordinary political involvement? Transformationalism puts high hopes on what can be accomplished before Jesus comes back, even to the point of denying, or minimizing, any notion of the final destruction of the world and expecting that something almost akin to the New Heavens and the New Earth can be created without any such catastrophe. It usually takes one of two forms: liberal or conservative. Liberal Transformationalism focuses on alleviating poverty, and inequality, encouraging education and other social programs, and generally trying to make society and government more just and fair. Conservative Transformationalism is, I would suspect, growing rarer, but I may be wrong. At any rate, Conservative transformationalists focus on such efforts as abolishing abortion, encouraging sexual morality, and keeping Christianity in the public sphere. 

My main problem with Transformationalism is its minimizing of the notion of a final destruction of the world. While there may be legitimate interpretations of the Bible that allow for no end-of-the-world destruction, I fear people may get into Transformationalism without understanding that such a philosophy entails a particular eschatology.

My other problem is Transformationalism’s tendency to overemphasize temporal, secondary matters. Although justice and morality are both important, they are signs of bigger changes. Faith in Christ, not abstaining from abortion or refusing to participate in injustice, saves a person. However great a society human efforts can manage to produce, perfection can never be achieved as long as there are those in that society whose hearts are unchanged. Injustice and immorality both stem from a broken relationship with God, a problem which even the best laws and the most sophisticated social programs cannot fix. Conversion to Christianity is the only solution. 

I do not mean to say that Christians should not be involved in politics. I only am saying that our hope is not in any earthly government or society. We do well to improve the country where we live, but we do not put our hope in the fortunes of that country. Jesus is already King, whoever may sit in the White House. If we follow in the footsteps of Kim Davis, let us do so not to place Jesus on His throne, but to point out to our governors that Jesus is on His throne, and that doing as He says is usually a good idea.