One of my concerns as the PCA moves forward is a rather clear theological and ethical movement to the Left, both with regard to biblical truth as well as personal and social ethics.

Oh! Oh! Oh! Canada!

In the past, I have written quite a bit about what I call the “New Religious Left” (NRL). I deduced from the criticism leveled at the “Christian Right” that there must be a counterpart to the Christian Right and it seemed reasonable to call Christians reacting to the Christian Right part of the Christian Left, even though they are convinced that they are the reasonable “middle.” I added the word “new” because of a discernible, noticeable relatively recent “shift” among some broad evangelicals as well as some in the PCA. I am not the only one who notices this slide to the left. Others have written rather extensively about evangelicals and some Reformed acquiring a keen interest in issues such as domestic and global poverty, environmentalism, negative aspects of capitalism, the Occupy Wherever movement, and “social justice,” just to mention the most prominent issues.

Of course, dyed-in-the-wool left-wingers like Jim Wallis have long since left the reservation (along with Elizabeth Warren, who is 1/32 Cherokee) for leftist ideology, but some others in the Christian camp are following suit. On May 15, 2012, I witnessed two black Baptist pastors on cable TV stating that they were opposed to President Obama’s positions on abortion and same-sex marriage, but that they intended to vote for him again since he was doing such a great job with the economy. In reality, they must live on a different planet from the rest of us if they believe that the stimulus package stimulated anything. More pastors need to study economics.

There are certain characteristics that are observable in the NRL, although those characteristics are neither universal nor applicable in every instance to every person across the board. Now that I have that disclaimer out of the way, I want to outline some of the major tents of this modern NRL movement within Christianity. There is a general dislike of the politics of conservatives for of a number of reasons, not least of which are the US military and war, greed (usually caused by capitalism),[1] not being willing to redistribute the wealth in America, not being willing to “go green,” the continued use of fossil fuels, Wall Street, big banking, and corporations, and a perceived general disregard for renewable energy, the poor, and the homeless. Thus, some modern Christians find Habitat for Humanity more palatable than, say, creating wealth. Helping the homeless and oppressed seems a better use of one’s time than teaching and preaching biblical truth or that ugly word “doctrine.”

I read some words recently that helped sharpen the focus and put matters into perspective for me. The speaker acknowledged that, “There is a wide divergence of opinions regarding the attitude of our Lord Jesus Christ toward society and its problems.” He went on to say that when some discuss the Lord Jesus and his ethics “they see first of all a social reformer.” The speaker echoed the sentiments of many today when he said, “They say [that] all spiritual ideas and powers in state and church, religion and society, science and art are caused ultimately and fundamentally by social conditions in the manner in which material goods are produced and distributed.” He continued and parroted the perceived notion that the gospel that Jesus brought was “therefore a gospel for the poor…. Jesus was the first socialist and anarchist.” He went on to describe how Jesus “always spoke in defense of the poor and against the wealthy. He always derided the rich and mighty yet looked with compassion on all who were wretched.” The critique leveled by others is that, “Today’s Christianity is narrow-minded and selfish…. If the Christian religion of today want to regain its lost influence and become a blessing to society, its attitude will have to change radically…it has to come down to people of all walks of life; it has to go out into the highways and byways of life and seek those who are lost. Christianity must become socially minded or else it will disappear.” These words seem quite missional and ecclesial, don’t they? Here is the caveat: They were written by Herman Bavinck in 1908 as he refuted the tenets of the Social-Democratic Party in Holland, which, I am told, lies in close proximity to The Netherlands. There were a number of Christians in Holland in 1908 who found the brand socialism promoted by that particular political party attractive.[2]

What sounds like something new under the sun today in many instances is little more than warmed over socialism—at best. One of my concerns as the PCA moves forward is a rather clear theological and ethical movement to the Left, both with regard to biblical truth as well as personal and social ethics. It has to be a concern of Christians today that there are those within Christianity who have no problem voting for a man (or woman, for that matter) who is in favor of partial-birth abortion, coercively redistributing wealth, creating class warfare, playing the race card repeatedly, and a host of other theological and ethical issues.

In part, this was one of the reasons I wrote about the danger of a “big tent” mentality within the PCA becoming too big. Even though I was living in Europe around the time the PCA was getting up and running, I believe it was Dr. Tim Keller who described the early “factions” within the PCA. If I recall correctly, he described a broadly evangelical group, the TRs (Truly Reformed”), and another group that was deeply concerned about evangelism. To some degree, it seems that we still have those groups in the PCA. In addition, however, there are now more factions entering into the big tent. Therefore, when I wrote the articles expressing some of my heartfelt concerns, I expected some “push back.” That is fine. My thoughts are: If you put something in print, you are fair game. What I did not expect, however, was a reaction rather than a response; I did not expect to get all kinds of accusations thrown my way that had little or nothing to do with the contents of my articles. Having said all this, allow me now to proceed and attempt to respond to a PCA colleague in Canada: Pastor Kevin Rogers, of Redeemer Community Church in Moncton, Nova Scotia, Canada.

I received a phone call on the morning of May the 8th informing me that Pastor Kevin Rogers had written a sequel to his first blog criticizing my articles about the “big tent” mentality in the PCA. When I arrived at my study, I downloaded Pastor Rogers’ response and read it. What pleased me the most were the excerpts and pictures from my Ron Birkenstock mockumentary. (A word of thanks is in order because we are getting record hits on that particular video and the folks at Comedy Central have offered me a lucrative contract that will supply me with enough filthy lucre and obscene profits to fulfill my aspirations to go ahead and purchase a Learjet.)

My elation was short-lived, however, when I read that Pastor Rogers disagrees with me in serious ways. He had my attention. I take the word “serious” seriously. I attempted to discern the nature of those serious disagreements by going back to the first article that Pastor Rogers wrote on April 26th of this year. I must admit that that did not help at all for a number of reasons that I will explain. After a brief explanation of Pastor Rogers’ articles, I will attempt to summarize the main points that I made in my articles and Pastor Rogers completely missed. When I write the summary, I will employ bullet points so they will be clear to Pastor Rogers, because he missed my main points by miles (or kilometers); he was not even close.

He began his April 26th blog with these words, “Dr. Gleason is against camping, and Democrats, and Obama, and immigrants. Ok I get that, but what exactly does that have to do with the PCA?” My first impressions were these: 1) Did Pastor Rogers even read the articles that I wrote? I found myself and what I wrote about nowhere in that opening salvo. 2) Did Pastor Rogers fail his “reading comprehension” class in high school? If he actually read my articles, he has a very selective way of reading between the lines and making assertions that are patently false. To parody Simon and Garfunkel, “Still a man reads what he wants to read and disregards the rest.” His response was as if I had run directly into the “toleration buzz saw.” For those unfamiliar with the “toleration buzz saw,” let me explain its iron-fist-in-a-velvet-glove main tenets. First, those desiring more toleration want to create space to have open, honest, caring, and safe conversations around “the table.” I sign on the dotted line to the first tenet.

Second, the adherents, who desire safe conversations, are omniscient. They know precisely what those who disagree with them think. They even know what those who disagree with them had for breakfast and why it is all the wrong food and is contributing to childhood obesity and making health insurance premiums rise, unlike, say, abortion. I discovered in the course of Pastor Rogers’ second blog that he knows what kind of person I am and exactly how I disagree with those who disagree with me. I would take that show on the road. That kind of prescience could make a person a lot of money that could be spent, say, camping. I was amazed at some of the conclusions that Pastor Rogers was able to draw about me just from reading what I wrote about the “big tent” in the PCA. The words “Astounding!” and “Remarkable!”

The third tenet of the “toleration buzz saw” is that those who disagree with the “tolerant” are uncaring, doctrinaire, and would do the PCA a service by just being quiet.

Finally, the “toleration buzz saw” tends to ignore—completely—the safe conversations around the table that they do not want to answer. I discovered this in spades in Pastor Rogers’ ostensible replies to me. I surmised that I hit a raw nerve and as safe as the conversation was, he did not want to deal with the issues, but rather chose to throw up smoke screens, all the while avoiding the points I made about the inherent dangers associated with a “big tent” mentality in any church affiliation. Just as a reminder: All one has to do is to look at many modern denominations. There are numerous examples of churches that have no biblical moral compass who started down the proverbial “slippery slope.” I would add this: Those churches were warned by those wanting a “bigger tent” that the “slippery slope” principle would absolutely not apply in their case.

In my articles, I was aiming at a conversation surrounding this question: How does one know when the “big tent” becomes too big? I gave several examples of what I meant. All of them were either lost on Pastor Rogers or went completely over his head—or both. Hence, buzz saw technique number four: ignore what you don’t want to discuss. I discussed in those articles some serious developments in the PCA that are causing some unrest such as liturgical anarchy, young children at the Lord’s Supper, and a host of others. I gave two examples of writings by Pastors Terry Johnson and Andy Webb. What I got back from Pastor Rogers was a slam at the US Marines, Texas Republicans, and Americanism, whatever that is. Again, number four.

At the end of the day, I was very confused how Pastor Rogers concluded that I was opposed to camping, Democrats, President Obama, and immigrants. In a brief reply to the first article I responded on Pastor Rogers’ blog site and explained that in point of fact I “camped” for three years under tanks while serving in the military, and did not mind doing that because I grew up with the notion that serving in the military meant that you believed that there was something greater than yourself in life and that serving one’s country was a noble thing to do. Thus, I endured the mosquitoes, diesel fumes, and hard ground for my country. That time was well spent and has served me well as a husband, father, grandfather, and pastor.

Second, I do not dislike Democrats. I know and am friends with several Democrats. There are Democrats in my wife’s family. Sometimes we let them go down range and hold the targets for us when we are sighting in our long guns. (Just in case there are some with no sense of humor that was a joke. I realize that one has to be careful. I told a woman once that my wife had a serious bronchitis, but that I had foregone watching Baseball Tonight so that I could hold her up at the sink so that she could wash the dishes. I got an earful!) Here is the real issue: I have serious ideological and worldview differences with Democrats and some RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) as well. I oppose many—most—Democrat policies. I believe it is quite possible to be opposed to an ideology and not dislike the person espousing that ideology. Sometimes it is not possible.

Third, the same is pretty much the same with a view to President Obama. I intensely dislike a number of his policies, including, but not limited to abortion, homosexual “marriage,” the economy, the environment, and “green” jobs. He is the President of the United States. I owe him honor and respect. As a sidebar, please do not think that my dislike for our President has anything to do with the color of his skin. Probably the military is the best organization that mixes the races and people are judged on their performance and not on their ethnicity. For the record: I dislike most of President Obama’s policies very much because they are akin to the policies of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. I also disliked most of the political parties in Canada when I lived there, not because I disliked the people but because they were liberal and socialistic.

Finally, I am not opposed to immigration. I lived in Holland for ten years and had to show my “papers” repeatedly. In other words, I was “profiled” on a regular basis, but I was a guest in their country and I thought it Christian to play by their rules unless those rules required me to violate biblical principles. Nothing the Dutch government ever required us to do went against scriptural principles, so I complied. Our family also had a “landed immigrant” status for the nine-and-a-half years that we lived in Canada. The accusation that I am opposed to immigration is ludicrous and patently untrue. That statement should not have been written.

By reading Pastor Rogers’ May 8th response to what I wrote, I was informed that his accusations were a joke, mere humor, and a wise crack about camping. I could only guess that Pastor Rogers might have been speaking about Harold Camping, but no, that was not the case. The May 8th article brought a great deal of clarity to the important ecclesiastical issues at hand by referencing attempts to download “Game of Thrones.” I have no idea what that means. That was a joke, mere humor, and a wise crack on my part about his attempt at clarity.

I suppose I am not among the initiated, but I have no clue what “Game of Thrones” is. I am guessing that it is a video game. Since I do not play video games, I would not know what it is. But more to the point: Pastor Rogers refers to me and his tone in his responses to me this way: “I preferred to address Dr. Gleason in the manner in which he is accustomed to speak.” Really? Who knew? Number two! (the number two I described about the toleration buzz saw). I don’t even know Pastor Rogers. We have never met. I would not presume to speak about the manner in which he is “accustomed” to speak, because I know about as much about that as I know about “Game of Thrones.” I would be very interested to know how Pastor Rogers knows much about me at all, let alone the manner in which I am accustomed to speak, especially when addressing those with whom I disagree.

Let me explain some things that apparently Pastor Rogers has grossly misunderstood. First, as I said, I am not opposed to immigration. I am very much in favor of immigration—legal immigration. I wrote about this topic extensively on my blog site, when I used to blog. Now I just play “Game of Thrones.” Do I object to the politically correct claptrap of “undocumented workers,” irrespective of who employs such terminology? Yes I do. It is a euphemism that denies reality. Am I opposed to illegal immigration? Yes I am. I am also opposed to human trafficking. Yes I am. Why? Because they are both sinful and illegal. Does that make me a bigot? No. Am I opposed to illegal activity in general? Yes I am. Ethically it is wrong and that is why I am opposed to illegal immigration and, of course, camping.

As a brief follow-up, may I suggest that my PCA colleagues do a quick Hebrew exercise and look up the differences among the words “native,” “sojourner,” and “foreigner” in the Old Testament. Contrary to popular belief and conventional wisdom, which is neither conventional nor true wisdom, God did not command that everyone be treated exactly the same all the time. As a matter of fact, Bavinck’s article that appeared in 1908 was combating the notion among some Christians in his day that God wanted the Church to be missional in a social justice, socialist way. Just for clarification: the Old Testament “sojourner” is not anywhere near the same as our current “illegal alien.” Perhaps Pastor Rogers has forgotten but the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly states that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” In other words, there is no morally neutral ground, even for illegal aliens.

If Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law, it would seem that Pastor Rogers would be intent on following both. Apart from the Canadian Charter of Rights, I would additionally refer him to what has been called the “original vision” of the PCA. My good friend and colleague, Dr. Bill Schweitzer brought this to my attention in a comment that he made on another site and in a different context when he cited the words of a letter written in 1973 about the PCA. He wrote that our forebears stated unequivocally that, “Views and practices that undermine and supplant the system of doctrine or polity of a confessional Church ought never to be tolerated. A Church that will not exercise discipline will not long be able to maintain pure doctrine or godly practice” (emphasis added). Precisely. My articles about the growing “big tent” mentality in the PCA addressed some “views and practices” that are concerning. I said nothing of camping, Democrats, President Obama, or (legal) immigration. Therefore, I am not certain whether Pastor Rogers intentionally distorted my meaning or simply did not fully grasp what was clear to my readers. Either way, the results are saddening.

Again, just to make certain we are all on the same page regarding illegal aliens, the following biblical texts ought to be part of our decision-making process: First, Exodus 12:48-49 makes it quite clear that if there were resident aliens in Israel that they had to abide by Israelite law.[3] Illegal aliens do not do that. That is why they are termed “illegal” aliens, assuming there are “legal” aliens. You can add all the euphemisms you want, but that does not make an illegal alien a morally neutral concept.

Moreover, the words “native,” “sojourner,” and “stranger” point us to those who had assimilated into Israelite society. There was another category, however, and that was the “foreigner” (נָכְרִים; נָכְרִיּוֹת). They were treated differently. The “foreigner” happened to be in Israel, but had no real attachment to that nation. He was treated differently. (cf. Deut. 14:21.[4]) Even resident aliens were treated quite differently from the native Israelite, even though they were allowed to participate in Israelite society.[5] My point from the Old Testament is simply that not all outsiders were treated alike and for us to attempt to create identification between Old Testament sojourners and our current dilemma of almost 12 million illegal aliens in the United States sorely misses the point.

John Bolt wrote an instructive article about both Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper and what they were aiming to accomplish in The Netherlands. He points out that 1891 was a “high-water mark” in the development of Christian social consciousness in the modern world, because it was then that Pope Leo XIII (His friends called him “Lucky”) issued his encyclical Rerum Novarum. This encyclical was Rome’s answer to “the nineteenth-century preoccupation with ‘the social question.’”[6] Bolt opines that the “social question” arose from the cataclysmic shift generated by the Industrial Revolution. The net result was that a number of “fixes” were desperately needed for society. Not surprisingly, a number of ideologies offered to supply that “fix,” ranging from Karl Marx, to the Anglicans Charles Kingsley and F.D. Maurice. Walter Rauschenbush and Francis Bellamy were also in the mix, as were the Germans Max Weber, Friedrich Naumann, Wilhelm Herrmann, and Adolf von Harnack.

Bolt’s description of the brand of “Christian socialism” that grew up is enlightening. He states that Christian socialism “was especially in view…because of the direct appeal to biblical themes used to promote its vision of the good social order: The kingdom of Jesus is a brotherhood of cooperation and love; the gospel is about helping the poor; in the current conflict of the classes between the rich and powerful on the one side and the poor and marginalized on the other, the church has historically usually taken the wrong side and must change its course; this means, concretely, that the church and Christians must side with and fully support the social democratic movements” of Bavinck’s and Kuyper’s day.[7] To quote Rauschenbusch’s answer to the question: What was Jesus’ mission? He wrote, “The fundamental purpose of Jesus was the establishment of the kingdom of God, which involved a thorough regeneration and reconstruction of social life.”[8]

What else did Pastor Rogers get wrong? How much time do you have? I was (vaguely) amused by the reference to military experience as a qualification for speaking to the church about a matter of ecclesiastical importance. In my first article, I wrote, “Part of my military training and background taught me that it was far better to speak in a timely fashion than to have regrets later.” How that was construed to be troubling is beyond me. Does Pastor Rogers desire to rule out any experience as “out of bounds” for speaking about ecclesiastical matters, or just military experience?

Two things that bother me greatly about Pastor Rogers’ articles: First, is the matter of accuracy and precision, or lack thereof. By way of information, I did not get my military commission by attending Officer Candidate School. I was not a “ninety day wonder.” I attended a military college and received my commission in the Armor branch of the U.S. Army upon graduation. I would be very interested, however, in knowing what “values” learned at O.C.S. or The Citadel would skew our ability to speak to the church. It seems to me that to this point a number of our non-military PCA leaders have done ample jobs of skewing ecclesiastical matters about which they have spoken.

If Pastor Rogers is at a loss to what I mean, I am referring to the Federal Vision, intinction, the historicity of Adam and Eve, un-ordained, commissioned deaconesses, women reading and praying in worship services, and women serving the Lord’s Supper, just to get the conversation rolling. In fact, I challenge Pastor Rogers to name the top ten values learned either at O.C.S. or during military service that would serve to skew ecclesiastical language.

Second, when Pastor Rogers (who knows me so well) wrote publicly of my form of “Semper Fi, Texas GOP, Americanism,” I submit that he had no idea what he was talking about. For the record, Semper Fidelis is the Marine motto and does not apply to the Army. My father served as a Marine for three years in the Pacific during World War II. He proudly served and wore the uniform. He proudly and freely defended our freedoms. Semper Fi belongs to my father and all Marines who served and serve their country. As a former Army Armor officer, I did not earn the right to use that language. Personally, I took Pastor Rogers’ reference to Semper Fi as a slur rather than something about which to be proud. I am convinced that Pastor Rogers owes the U.S Marines an apology. Texas GOP? Where in the world did that accusation come from? I am not from Texas and how does Pastor Rogers know how I vote? Americanism? Is that a slur as well? Am I an American? Yes. What exactly does Pastor Rogers mean by Americanism? Is that a reference to camping again? In all his humor, Pastor Rogers threw mud at the Marines, conservative Texans, and America. Personally, I don’t find that very funny, downloading “Game of Thrones” notwithstanding.

Pastor Rogers also accused me of latitudinarianism. Latitudinarianism is defined by The Oxford Dictionary as “liberal, especially in religion.” Those who know me (even better than Pastor Rogers, if that is possible) find calling me a latitudinarian laughable. I understand that he does not like my view of illegal immigration. Okay. I got it. It is, however, a serious ill facing the Church when pastors are complicit and harboring those who are in our countries illegally. There is no moral neutrality in illegal immigration.

If Pastor Rogers believes that I belittled the doctrine of justification by faith alone in my articles by mentioning justification and illegal immigration in the same breath, then I believe he ought to get his witnesses and bring charges against me in a proper manner. I will defend my view of justification by faith any day. It is biblical and historically orthodox, but if he is convinced that my view is heterodox, then he needs to get his witnesses and bring his charges to the Church courts. If he is not willing to take such steps, then he needs to withdraw his words.

His explanation of my latitudinarianism is that, “Conflating political opinions with theological values lessens the importance of the theological.” My studies in Christian ethics at the Free University of Amsterdam and systematic theology at Westminster (Philadelphia) taught me that ethics and dogmatics always belong together. The Dutch ethicist, Jochem Douma put it this way, “Dogmatics without ethics is empty; ethics without dogmatics is blind.”[9] If Pastor Rogers or anyone else desires a more robust definition I will point you to what Herman Bavinck said. He taught Reformed Dogmatics and Reformed Ethics for twenty years in Kampen, Holland (See Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, 58). Apparently, Pastor Rogers has not heard of Reformed Social Ethics. To help him along, in addition to the works I have already suggested, I would recommend a book by one of his countrymen, Dr. Keith Van Dam, God and Government. Camping notwithstanding, impugning my view of justification by faith and accusing me of latitudinarianism was a very cheap and unsubstantiated shot.

Third, I suggest that Pastor Rogers download and read the entire William B. Greene article that I used especially in my third article. Greene’s article dealt with serious issues within the Church during his time. He was not referring specifically to union with unbelievers. How Pastor Rogers divined that still remains a mystery. I will spend more time on this in a moment. But here are the bullet points that Pastor Rogers failed to see and to grasp:

· Dr. Terry Johnson’s reference to “liturgical anarchy” in the PCA along with Pastor Andy Webb’s comment on FaceBook.
· The Solemn League and Covenant (1643) seeking uniformity in worship among the Reformed churches in Ireland, Scotland, and Great Britain. In addition, this unity was to be patterned along the lines of the “best Reformed churches.”
· Pastor Rogers did not even mention the issues that are stretching the “big tent” mentality to the limits, such as un-ordained deaconesses, women serving the Lord’s Supper, intinction, the historicity of Adam and Eve, theistic evolution, and women reading and praying in worship services (just to mention a few).
· Pastor Rogers’ failure to take due account that the 36th General Assembly of the PCA addressed the issue of deaconesses.
· My reference to former-Supreme Court associate Justice Joseph Story’s comments written in 1829 about “concealed dry rot.”
· My comments that the modern desires for a “big(ger) tent” are not derived from questions based on biblical exegesis, but more on the spirit of the age.
· Greene’s comment that “Broad Churchism is the tendency to regard Church union as more important that Church distinctions.” How Pastor Rogers applies this to believers and unbelievers is beyond comprehension.
· Greene’s comment that, “At first disposed to give up on the minor distinctions of polity in favor of union, it is eager at last to set aside fundamental doctrines and even to unite organically Churches whose regulative principles are contradictory.” Note well: This is not about believer and non-believers.
· Greene’s comment about ecclesiastical utilitarianism and broad churchism’s lack of interest in creeds.
· Greene’s comment about the preaching of his day being anything and everything but doctrinal.
· My comment about the inverse relationship between the largeness of the big tent and the appreciation for theology. In my Presbytery a young(ish) pastor approached me one meeting and said, “Ron, you would be really proud of us. We are getting together once a month to read theology together.” My reply was, “What a novel idea: theologians reading theology. Wow! That would be like doctors finding it unique to get together and discuss medicine.”

There is more—much more—that I could say, but I will stop. My consummate frustration in Pastor Rogers’ reply is the inordinately large number of unsubstantiated accusations and innuendoes about who I am, what I am like, and the disparagement of the armed forces and Texas. To say that this is all being done in humor does not ring true. In fact, by his tone and his disregard for what I actually wrote in my articles, it really sounds as if I hit a raw nerve. What I received from Pastor Rogers was a reaction and not a response. He did not deal with my arguments in the least, but rather chose to go the path of disregarding the content of what I said and knee-jerking on a number of hot button issues and topics. I do not intend to respond further, because I have many other things that I need to do, not least of which is to get over to Tim Horton’s doughnuts for some Timbits, a double-double, and to pack for my next camping trip. A bunch of us are going camping and then demonstrating against immigration.

Pastor Ron Gleason, Ph.D., is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Yorba Linda, Cailf.

[1] For those who want to become informed about real capitalism and are willing to go beyond the Left’s “talking points,” I highly recommend to you the worthwhile book by the Christian Jay W. Richards, Money, Greed, and God. Why Capitalism is the Solution and not the Problem, (NY: Harper Collins, 2009).

[2] The article originally appeared as Christelijke beginselen en maatschappelijke verhoudingen in the series Christendom en Maatschappij. It can be read in its entirely in English as “Christian Principles and Social Relationships,” in Herman Bavinck, Essays on Religion, Science, and Society, (John Bolt [ed.] & Harry Boonstra & Gerrit Sheeres [trans.]), (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 119-143.

[3] If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.

[4] You shall not eat anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God.

[5] Cornelis Van Dam, God and Government, points out that resident aliens were not allowed to own land, but they could enjoy the benefits of the land; they could share in the festivities and food during the annuals feasts; Israelites were not to oppress them or deny them justice; they had to submit to the same covenant laws; they received equal justice and fair wages.

[6] John Bolt, “Herman Bavinck’s Contribution to Christian Social Consciousness,” Journal of Markets and Morality, Vol. 13, No. 2, (Fall 2010): 413.

[7] Bolt, “Herman Bavinck’s Contribution to Christian Social Consciousness,” 420.

[8] Walter Rauschenbusch, Christianizing the Social Order, (NY: Macmillan, 1919), 420.

[9] Jochem Douma, Responsible Conduct, (Nelson Kloosterman [trans.]), (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2003), 41.