Scripture
Readers will certainly have noticed my persistent appeal to scripture throughout this discussion. It is one of Reformed theology’s great distinctives that it takes scriptural teaching with the utmost seriousness. Auguste Lecerf, a French Reformed thinker in the early 20th century, described the relation between Reformed Christianity and scripture as follows: “With head bowed in the dust, [the Reformed church] would listen to the Word of God. It speaks when it believes that God has spoken, but remains silent in the presence of the silence of [God’s] Word. Here are its credentials. It has no others.”[7] This primacy of scripture stands out in the importance of confessions among Reformed Christians. Unlike some other Christian traditions that give the theology embodied in their confessions a binding and almost legal quality, Reformed Christianity has always understood its confessions as provisional and contextually determined statements. Aside from recognizing the vicissitudes of life that necessarily impinge upon any particular confession, the Reformed tradition has given its confessions only relative authority “because [the confessions] are subordinate to the higher authority of Scripture,” as the “Confessional Nature of the Church Report,” which heads the PCUSA’s Book of Confessions, explains.[8]
A further distinction comes from the tradition’s impulse to approach all of scripture as normative, including—critically—the Old Testament. While Christianity as a whole rejects the heresy of Marcionism, which argues that the God of the Old Testament is not “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph 1:3) and consequently that the Old Testament is not properly Christian scripture, the Reformed tradition stands out historically as taking that rejection to heart. It is easy to find sermons preached on Old Testament texts by Reformed ministers, and fifteen of the twenty-two volumes of Calvin’s biblical commentaries deal with Old Testament books. Indeed, the above discussion of the place that the covenant—a term far more common in the Old Testament than the New—has in Reformed theology demonstrates this point as well.
One strand of the Old Testament’s message is especially pertinent to the present discussion. I refer to what scholars call the Prophetic Tradition, a recurring voice throughout the Old Testament that called Israel back to faithful covenant relationship with God. This tradition is worth explicating here. Listen to Amos 5.21-23:
I hate, I despise your festivals,
and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.
Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them;
and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals
I will not look upon.
Take away from me the noise of your songs;
I will not listen to the melody of your harps.
We have here a litany of how ancient Israel put into practice their love of God, which revolved around sacrifices offered at the temple in Jerusalem. God prescribed all this as the proper way to put their love of God into practice. Why does God now hate these things? The answer is in verses 11-12:
because you trample on the poor
and you take from them levies of grain,
you have built houses of hewn stone,
but you shall not live in them;
you have planted pleasant vineyards,
but you shall not drink their wine.
For I know how many are your transgressions,
and how great are your sins –
you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe,
and push aside the needy in the gate.
God’s message of judgment comes to Israel through Amos because Israel has forgotten, as the prophet Micah puts it, “to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Mi 6.8). From an ethical perspective, Israel has forgotten that the second table of the law flows ineluctably from the first, that the love of neighbor is itself a part of the love of God. What does God recommend through his prophet Amos as the proper response to this unacceptable state of affairs? It certainly is not more burnt offerings! Amos provides an answer in verse 15:
Hate evil and love good,
and establish justice in the gate.
God demands that God’s people address the social injustice in their midst, that they oppose it, that they hate it. Furthermore, these are not recommendations for an individual’s pious attitudes and charitable activities. Justice must be established at the gate, where the elders sat in ancient towns and cities to hear disputes and render judgments. God’s message through the Old Testament prophets is that faithful and active covenant relationship with God requires that one support the oppressed and oppose the privileged, not only in one’s personal life, but also and critically at the very heart of the structures and institutions that govern society.
Neither is this powerful prophetic witness absent from the New Testament. It seems to have played a key role in Jesus Christ’s own thought. Two examples will suffice to make this point.
___________________________________________
Jesus intimates that it is impossible to love one’s neighbor rightly while also accumulating significant wealth.
___________________________________________
First, Jesus encounters a rich, young ruler who inquires as to what it takes to enter God’s kingdom. Jesus replies by reciting the Law, the Ten Commandments. The ruler replies, “I have kept all these since my youth,” only to hear from Jesus that “there is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor . . . then come, follow me.” Luke tells us that when the ruler heard this, “he became sad; for he was very rich” (cf. Lk 18.18-23). This incident contains immense implications for understanding the Law. Jesus makes two important points by bringing the ruler’s riches to the fore and by requiring that he give those riches away to the poor in response to the ruler’s conviction that he had observed all that the Law requires. On the one hand, Jesus intimates here that it is impossible to rightly love God through observing the Law without also loving the neighbor through giving of one’s resources. But there is another and even more radical hand. Jesus intimates that it is impossible to love one’s neighbor rightly while also accumulating significant wealth.[9]
Second, Jesus appeals to the prophetic tradition as a cornerstone of his self-understanding, of the way in which he understood his God-given vocation. Luke records an incident that occurred at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, following shortly after Luke’s description of Jesus’ birth, baptism, and period of temptation in the wilderness. Jesus returned from the wilderness to his home region of Galilee and began to teach in the synagogues there. When he arrived at his hometown of Nazareth and entered the synagogue, he read from a scroll containing Isaiah’s prophetic teaching:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
The Lord has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
Jesus then rolled up the scroll and sat down and said, with what I can only imagine was a studied calmness, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (cf. Lk 4.14-21). Thus did Jesus identify himself with the prophetic tradition’s concern for social justice, for taking the side of the poor and oppressed and standing with them against the privileged, for calling God’s people—and, indeed, the whole world—to faithful and active covenant relationship with God.
Continue reading on the next page…
Links,
A Response to Travis McMaken’s “Why I Support #OWS as a Reformed Theologian”
Todd V. Cioffi
Calvin College
Grand Rapids, MI
Professor McMaken provides a helpful assessment of the recent “Occupy Movement” (hereafter cited as OWS). No doubt many of us are confused as to what exactly this movement is all about, and clarity is hard to find. And as is often the case, mainstream Christian voices are either unhelpfully predictable (affirmation of anything that seems like “social justice”) or uncharitably narrow (rejection of anything “liberal” or “progressive”). Consequently, McMaken’s analysis of OWS is most welcome.
I appreciate McMaken’s attempt to provide a justification of OWS. Wealth (mis)distribution in the U.S. is obscene and the inordinate influence wealth plays in our political processes is unconscionable. At its best, then, OWS is a movement with laudable motivation and cause. And McMaken is just right, in my mind, to claim that the Reformed tradition can support and develop the best of OWS.
As noted, shot through the Reformed tradition is moral concern for creation, society, and justice. And McMaken rightly highlights key aspects of this concern: a positive use of the Law, covenant, scripture, and a concentrated commitment to the oppressed. Any Reformed Christian who does not see and embrace this has shirked her vocation. McMaken, then, calls Reformed Christians to their better selves. Indeed, every (Reformed) Christian (and person of good will, no less) needs to pay attention to OWS and join in solidarity by addressing disparities of wealth and political standing in this country.
At the same time, however, if OWS is mostly, if not solely, targeting the assumed evils of capitalism, then there is more to be desired. And as to whether Professor McMaken is suggesting this is not clear. Near the end of his essay, McMaken quotes Helmut Gollwitzer, noted as one of Karl Barth’s “most significant students.” Gollwitzer asks about the relationship between “Christian existence and capitalism,” apparently contending that Christians cannot defend a social system that rests on capitalism. Such interpretation seems to follow given that Barth thought capitalism is an acid of society. For Barth, democratic socialism, which is as much a statement about economic order as it is about political life, should be more appealing from a Christian vantage point than other “systems.” Along this line, McMaken claims that Gollwitzer’s question is the question that OWS puts before the church. If indeed it is truly just a question, then the church, and especially Reformed Christians, would do well to consider carefully the question before us. Yet, not far below the surface of Gollwitzer’s contention, I suspect, is Barth’s denouncement of capitalism as, in Gollwitzer’s words, “intolerable.” Even if I’m right about this interpretation, why does this matter?
If the problem is capitalism, especially as represented by Wall Street, and the solution is the dismantling of Wall Street and capitalism, then I’m not sure we are significantly better off in the long run than where we are now. An “either-or” is rarely a good way to tackle a complex problem. Yet, such an “either-or” does seem to be in play at the national level when it comes to OSW and Wall Street. (Even if that isn’t a completely accurate description, it does seem to be the perception.) Going back and forth between either the virtue or the injustice of capitalism isn’t getting us anywhere, nor will it. Frankly, the question shouldn’t first and foremost be about capitalism, but, instead, what does a good society look like?
My concern is that as a society we are so often at a loss for how to have the conversation about what counts as a good society. In other words, I’m not convinced the problem is that of capitalism per se, but is one of moral capital. What moral resources do we have available in order to have the conversation, indeed debate, about what a good society looks like? What social practices can we point to as ones that will form and guide us in seeking the good life? How has the church been, or can be, a source for the good life in America?
I think OSW is a good thing for us as a society. But not necessarily because they’ve pointed out the evils of capitalism (surely we’ve known about the evils of American capitalism for some time). Rather, I think the opportunity that has been created is that of asking the hard questions about the moral content and direction of our society. I suspect that a Wall Street banker is not interested in hearing about the rampant evils of capitalism. But I wonder if we can get that banker to sit down and talk about the good life and a good society. It may even be the case that we could envision a good form of capitalism, Wall Street banking, and so forth. And here is where I think the church, and no doubt Reformed Christians, have an edge.
Our churches are often understood as moral communities, albeit imperfect ones, by many people in our society. Let’s cash in on that perception. Instead of taking predictable sides, what if Christians refused ideological agendas and sought to foster an atmosphere where we as a nation could entertain profound moral questions about our society? I’m reminded of an example, given the past month of February and Black History Month. Martin Luther King, Jr. was adept in the language of justice and the like. But, he was most challenging and most inspiring when he sought to see our society not simply as more just but more in line with the Beloved Community as given in John’s gospel. Better than justice is love, better than equity is mercy and care. The church is skilled in such language and ways of life. While not leaving justice and equity behind, let the church seek a more perfect way. OSW may just have given us our chance.
Hey Travis,
Great post. I’ve linked to it from The Occupy Church.
I affirm your position that Christians are to be in the movement but not of it, as it were. The Scriptures provide us with amazing resources for understanding wealth and I pray with you that we begin again to take them seriously.
Peace,
Jeremy (@glassdimlyfaith)
Todd,
YOu wrote: “No doubt many of us are confused as to what exactly this movement is all about, and clarity is hard to find”. What Travis has done here is to make plain what is indeed EASY to find if we just ask. There’s a bit of the “hands over ears saying LaLaLa” thing happening with this meme of OWS not having a clear message. It’s EASY to find. Just ask an Occupier. Also, Travis has done a great job here of tying together the theological issues at hand.
Dale, my opening paragraph is an attempt to support Travis’s help in providing clarity on the OW movement. Also, while acknowledging that Travis has helped in making things clearer and providing a helpful theological framework for us, I want to ask a few questions having to do with capitalism and what exactly churches should be doing. As to just how “easy” it is to be clear what the OW movement is all about, I have my doubts. Such movements are never “easy” to understand fully. It may be a matter of some putting their hands over their ears, but not completely. For instance, one thing does seem clear: folks want the greed of Wall Street to stop. But then what? What kind of society is actually envisioned by the Movement? That’s not clear, at least not to me. And here, as I note above, is where churches can play a substantial role in helping to create a moral vision for society.